I watched a bit of the John Roberts hearing recently - trying to guess the implications of the word 'conservative' when used. Are all Conservatives also Christian Fundamentalists? I don't think so. Are all Conservatives also Republicans? Mostly.
But I fear that many who call themselves Conservative but aren't themselves Christian Fundamentalists are choosing not to make a distinction given the current theocratic climate of the GOP. Too many Conservatives don't seem to care, worry about or - at the very least - understand the implications of the Christian Fundamentalist takeover of their party. I wonder if these non-fundamentalist Conservatives have ever thought about fundamentalism in a broader global perspective regardless of its Christian, Jewish or Islamic manifestations.
"...the 'fundamentalisms' all follow a certain pattern. They are embattled forms of spirituality, which have emerged as a response to a perceived crisis. They are engaged in a conflict with enemies whose secular policies and beliefs seem inimical to religion itself. Fundamentalists do not regard this battle as a conventional political struggle, but experience it as a cosmic war between the forces of good and evil. They fear annihilation, and try to fortify their beleaguered identity by means of selective retrieval of certain doctrines and practices from the past. To avoid contamination, they often withdraw from mainstream society to create a counterculture; yet fundamentalists are not impractical dreamers. They have absorbed the pragmatic rationalism of modernity, and, under the guidance of charismatic leaders, they have refined these "fundamentals" so as to create an ideology that provides the faithful with a plan of action. Eventually they fight back and attempt to resacrilize an increasing skeptical world." — The Battle for God, p. xiii, by Karen Armstrong
After reading Bill Moyers' recent speech 9/11 and the Sport of God regarding the growing threat of fundamentalism in this country especially after 9/11, I thought of the influence it has had in my life. I come from an extended family with members who are people of color and members (including myself) who are gay. Yet some in my extended family remain explicitly and unapologetically racist while others of my immediate family remain decidedly and arrogantly anti-gay. And I believe it is primarily the fundamentalists in this country who have nurtured these xenophobic arrogant world views. I attribute to the leaders of the Christian Fundamentalists the longevity of these hateful and racist attitudes living on in my family.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jim Lamb
John Roberts is a Catholic. Unless the core character of Protestant Fundamentalism has changed since I was a youngster at St. Benedict's, Catholics are persona non grata. I still remember the unflattering flyers and tracts planted around the playground that made remarkably un-Christian accusations against our Priests and Nuns, demonizing them as well as us. Back then we Catholics were placed in the same category as blacks and Jews, which, of course, made us all Democrats. (What a difference a few decades make.) As you know, Christianity, like every other religion, is made up of imperfect people with a swath and swatch of faults and flaws. Fundamentalists are just one, small fragmented segment; Catholics are another, though substanitally larger, slice. Yet we are all equally challenged by the crucified (and risen) Lord we serve, to be “perfect,” even as He is perfect. Imagine how bad things would be if we weren’t at least trying " I shudder to think.
2 - Anthony Grande
No, fascist fundalmentalists would say we can't say "under god" and can't CHOOSE to place the Ten Commandments outside a courtroom.
A fundalmentalist fascist would also say we have to say under god and have to have the Ten Commandments outside a courtroom.
Now Roberts and us sensible people haven't done ANY of the two example I listed. But I know some people that have done the first one.
3 - Al Barger
So Patrick, is any Christian who says that homosexuality is a sin against God ie any Christian who believes in the Bible therefore a fascist hater?
4 - Patrick Yaeger
JL - I say 'Christian Fundamentalists' for it includes Protestants and Catholics alike. The witch hunt planned by the Vatican to expel all gay priests is but one recent example of Catholic tyranny. Father Judge, who died on 9/11 administering last rites to a fallen fire fighter, was a self-identified gay celibate priest. The Vatican would discard him as an unworthy human, an unworthy priest if he were alive today. How uninspired!
AG - Specious argument. The Fundamentalists seek to overturn women's rights, redefine science to suit biblical text and segregate gay and lesbian people by insisting they be treated as less than fully human. Annoyance at having the Pledge retuned to its original text or insisting courthouses remain neutral is silly and laughable in comparison.
AB - Yes. In the same way that I would include those who adhere to white supremacist ideologies while pointing to passages in the Bible. Yes. The passages are there for anyone to read. The moment of truth comes when one chooses to take either all of the Bible literally or just selective parts of it. Can't have it both ways. So which is it? Do you believe in every text found in the Bible or just those being preached this generation. Ahhh, the problem is that the Bible may not be a very good book but it is a very long one. Try reading it. Pretty contradictory and quite immoral in parts. Sorry.
5 - Steve S
Welcome to BC, Patrick, I've been a reader of QueerVisions off and on for awhile.
Al, an individual is entitled to think that homosexuality is a sin against God, of course, but when that individual also believes that the government should then act accordingly, then the individual might get called a lot of things. Whether or not they are accurate in terminology isn't the point to many of us.
6 - Patrick Yaeger
Thanks for the welcome Steve. I can't tell you how great it was to unexpectedly hear mention of my blog. Wow this internet thing works. And your comment is right on the mark I think.
7 - Al Barger
Patrick seems to be at least personally intolerant of Christianity. Anyone who actually believes in the Bible is "yes" a fascist hater.
Steve, most Christians I know do not particularly wish that the government should "act accordingly." Not seeing it.
If you're advocating that government should jail individuals for homosexual conduct, then you're wrong. You don't have that right to decide for the rest of us.
Yup, the Bible is long, and I don't think that stuff really happened. Also, there's a fair amount of wiggle room in just how you take some of it. Nonetheless, a lot of people do believe, and they take it seriously. If you are a Christian, then you must believe the homosexuality is sinful. You might soft pedal honestly deny it.
It's taken many long centuries to housebreak Christianity so that Christians are fit for civilization, and don't presume that they should get to compel everyone else to believe in their ways. But that has largely been accomplished.
In fact, best I can tell from my front row seat in the Bible Belt, even most staunch Pentecostal types mostly don't believe that they should enforce their beliefs on others.
Legislating religious morality is still somewhat problematic, but it's not a reasonable reflection of reality at all to use words like "theocracy" to describe American Christians. And it's absolutely ridiculous to even slightly compare even goofy Pat Robertson (for whom I voted) to the evil Muslim mullahs.
That you would even BEGIN to lump John Roberts in with "fascist fundamentalism" strongly suggests either being out of your tree, or just HUGELY intolerant.
In short, I'm not interested in attending your re-education Death Camp of Tolerance.
And screw Bill Moyers while we're at it. That intolerant and dishonest jackass is little more than a high rent Michael Moore.
8 - Al Barger
Hmm, let me try a redo on the last half of paragraph four:
If you are a Bible believing Christian, then you simply MUST accept that homosexuality is sinful. You might soft pedal it to some extent, but you can't honestly deny it.
9 - Patrick Yaeger
If, as you say, you "don't believe that stuff really happened", why do you seemingly defend those who seek to legislate laws based fundamentally on the literal interpretation of select texts of the Bible? This is nonsensical.
As for your statement that Bible believing Christians must accept that homosexuality is sinful - rubbish. Many churches and people of faith use and rely on the Bible while also allowing for its irrelevance in some areas or its outright immorality in others. As some have put it, God is still speaking to these self-identified Bible believing Christians, homosexuality is no more sinful than left-handedness or mentstruation.
If you had said Fundamentalist Literalist Bible Believing Evangelicals, you might have had a point but even then not perfectly. These Fundamentalists would be revealed as the hypocrites they are if confronted with every text in the Bible and not given any "wiggle room" as you put it to escape their barbarity and cruelty. See Cruelty in the Bible (the short list) for starters. Then get back to me if you have the stomach.
10 - Al Barger
I do not see very many Christians in America 2005 as seeking "to legislate laws based fundamentally on the literal interpretation of select texts of the Bible."
I'm well aware of many of these "cruel" and illiberal Biblical texts that you refer to. I'm sympathetic to Christians trying to interpret them in manners friendly to decent modern civilized living together.
It's not unreasonable for a Christian to take a lot of the book as metaphorical. Maybe the six days of Genesis does not mean 24 hours times 6 as we understand it now. What is a day to God? Maybe Jonah and the whale was an allegory rather than being meant to represent a literal story.
But if you're going to take the Bible seriously, then it does say SOMETHING. One or two verses about menstruation might be explained away. But two men together is undeniably an act of fornication against every bit of the Bible.
People who claim otherwise are not being honest. They're placing their desire for modern politically correct beliefs ahead of their belief in the Bible. I do not consider that respectable.
I do not accept cafeteria Christianity.
From Revelation 22:18 "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life"
Beliefs should be accepted or rejected, but not cut and pasted to make them say what is CONVENIENT to your personal preferences. Do you believe in the Bible or not?
For further study on this topic, I recommend my old college God and Country columns.
In short, tolerance runs ALL directions. I expect even good fundamentalist Christians to be nice, and to try to be understanding, even if they don't approve of your lifestyle. Hate the sin, not the sinner is the best mantra for that.
Likewise, I expect you to cut the Christians as much slack as possible. I think they're misguided to believe in the Bible, but don't be making honest and sincere Christians out to be evil fascist hatemongers. They're mostly not. They're good people trying to do right.
11 - Patrick Yaeger
You are generalizing what I have said. I was very specific. All Christians aren't anti-gay nor racist as is obvious by what I wrote. I wish you had read it. Anyways...
Who decides which parts of the Bible are metaphorical/allegorical, as you say, and which are not? I'd really like to know. By viewing the Bible on such terms aren't you yourself the mixed up Cafeteria Christian against whom you just warned. What about the texts below? Allegorical? Metaphorical? Literal? Who decides? Do tell...
:) Remember, you are not a cafeteria Christian. ;)
12 - Dave Nalle
>>Remember, you are not a cafeteria Christian<<
Who'd want to be? There's so little food left to put in on the service line in the christian cafeteria.
Dave
13 - Patrick Yaeger
True. Perhaps some good ol' canned spam. Oh wait. No good. Pork there. Perhaps a soy spam?
14 - Al Barger
Very good, Patrick. Now we're having some real discussion, though we could have done without the facetious "wish you'd read it" part.
For starters, I think that you WERE speaking pretty generally of a "Christian Fundamentalist takeover of their party." I simply do not see any push for any theocratic regime. That pretty much looks to me like it's all in your head.
It might be that I'm bending over backwards a bit to cut the Christians some slack, and thus opening myself up somewhat to the "cafeteria Christians" critique. Still, I'm inclined to give them every reasonable bit of leeway to interpret things in a pro-social manner.
For one thing, a certain amount can reasonably be written off even by a believer as narrow laws made for the time. A lot of the narrow dietary restrictions of the Old Testament can reasonably be taken as a reflection of their times. Jews 3,000 years ago shouldn't be fooling with pork that they couldn't refrigerate, say. Obviously, we're not going for that today, cause pork chops taste GOOD. Bacon tastes GOOD.
Accepting some specific stories as allegories is not cafeteria-ing them, but just reasonably trying to make sense of the Author's intent. By any standard, there are lots of different writing styles and purposes, so what is God meaning for us to take from this?
But you just cannot reasonably read the Bible and come away thinking that Yahweh thinks it's cool for guys to plook each other. That's not one or two verses involved, but the whole spirit of the Book.
And still, Christians will end up snagging their bags on a hundred different things that there's not much good justification or explanation for. Unless you start with firm belief in the Bible no matter what, you're going to end up going, huh?
As to slavery, that doesn't look real good on them, does it? But even that is slightly more explicable. At least by the Old Testament, you'd have to conclude that slavery was at least somewhat Biblically acceptable. Not cool, but also not absolutely mandatory. Perhaps Yahweh would accept some slavery under certain conditions, but you could still be against it NOW. It's certainly not a tenet of faith.
Also, an honest Christian might be real tough about what the definition of a "stubborn or rebellious son" would be, or how long "cut off" should last. To the end of the menstrual cycle perhaps?
Plus, Jesus seemed to be releasing the people from a lot of the narrow strictures of the old law. The New Testament was not filled with lots of real narrow, specific laws.
As to stoning a non-virgin there was a clear and specific change made by Jesus with the story of the woman at the well. Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.
It did, however, preserve the basic anti-sex nature. Jesus did NOT tell the woman to go back to whoring around, that it's all good now. He told her to go forth and sin no more. Those are very different things.
This can get a reasonable Christian a long way toward a reasonable tolerant social attitude. Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, see, so I'll not be too presumptuous about speaking on behalf of God. This behavior looks like horrible sin, but that'll be up to Jesus to decide and punish on judgement day.
But that's STILL not saying that Jesus said it was cool for two guys to do it, cause he didn't.
15 - Patrick Yaeger
One has to only read the words of Robertson and Falwell (Dobson and Fred Phelps are no better or worse) to see the insanity of these fanatics:
Such lovely wise people, right?
And once again I ask, who decides which biblical text is allegory, metaphor, literal, absolute truth and so forth?
How do you know? How do they know?
Who told you this? Who told them this?
If there are parts, as you say, not meant for our time, why is it so important, to you, that passages regarding men lying with men are kept as unequivocally meant for today?
This seems blatantly nonsensical given the number of gay people who have stepped forward and told their stories and simply ask for compassion and understanding not vilification, double standards, hate, cruelty, etc. The church, once again, excels at nurturing these attitudes towards people who are fundamentally yet naturally different.
While remarried divorced people - adulterers according to Jesus who continue to sin against their first spouse as long as they are remarried - are welcomed into the church under God's grace, why are homosexual people disallowed that grace by many mainstream churches? It seems easy to scapegoat homosexuals for they're small in number, thus little incentive to be compassionate toward them, whereas opposing remarried adulterers as vehemently (as homosexuals are opposed) would empty churches. Strategic, uninspired, machiavellian calculation or, at the very least, blatant hypocrisy. Unsurprising.
16 - Al Barger
Patrick, I'm not a believer, and it's not my place to explain or excuse everything that any Christian believes, but you're reaching pretty far here. You're not even TRYING to see there points of view.
For starters, screw Falwell and Robertson. A few passing off the wall quotes from these guys don't reflect the beliefs much less the ACTIONS of the majority of the Christian community. They don't necessarily even reflect their own true beliefs. For one thing, maybe we might cut some slack all around for lots of people talking a little (extra) nutsy right after 9/11.
And leave Fred Phelps out of it. He's ONE dumbass with a congregation that consists of maybe a couple dozen relatives. He represents NO ONE, absolutely least of all Jesus.
You might reasonably say that there is hypocrisy in the easy acceptance of divorce and re-marriage. Fine. But that still does not make homosexuality Biblically acceptable. It just does not, you're not in any reasonable way going to make that it does.
Sexual mores were NOT overturned by Jesus, and they're a lot more significant than not eating goat fat. Those are considered major moral laws, not practical dietary restrictions.
Are some Christians showing less than Christian charity toward homosexuals? Yes, I'm sure, and you'd probably have a lot better knowledge of this than I do.
That STILL does not amount to "fascist fundamentalism." Few Christians of even the stronger stripes are trying to significantly use the law to club non-believers over the head in America 2005.
Again, my major point to you is that if you expect religious conservatives to reach out to you, to try to wrap their minds around your lifestyle and worldview and to accept you, then you have to do the same for them.
17 - Patrick Yaeger
This is all just arguments of ideology to you it seems. Christian Fundamentalists and their ilk cause great suffering to many people, especially gay people. Too many gay and lesbian teenagers can tell you their stories of torment all in the name of God by these people.
I don't expect Christian Fundamentalists to reach out to me. They are adamant that homosexuals are inferior creatures unworthy of full human status. They are lost in their own insular reality.
Blacks probably don't expect Aryan Nation to reach out to them. They are adamant Blacks are inferior creatures unworthy of full human status. They are lost in their own insular reality.
Jews probably don't expect Anti-Semites to reach out to them. They are adamant that Jews are inferior creatures unworthy of full human status. They are lost in their own insular reality.
I hope you one day stand up and stop making excuses for these extremist arrogant 'well-meaning' Christian Fundamentalist people. Yes of course many of them mean well but so what! That's not an excuse.
It takes great courage to dissent and speak out against orthodoxy. It takes great courage to say no when most say yes to prejudice and slander. It takes great courage to stop complying with the cowardice of many church leaders in their continued immoral denigration and scapegoating of our gay and lesbian friends, colleagues, neighbors and family.
To torment, ostracize and segregate through the law people who are fundamentally, naturally and normally homosexual is to do evil. There is nothing more to it. It's time people of courage stand up. Many heterosexual people are doing just that and many of them in communities of faith. I invite you to do the right thing and join them.
Take care.
18 - Al Barger
Yeah, right about here you're losing me. "This is all just arguments of ideology to you" That is, I'm trying as best I can to apply logic and reason to understanding and reconciling people. As opposed to you, for whom it is (understandably) a more emotional personal issue.
But that doesn't mean that you should abandon logic and reason, but that it's all the more important to try to detach from it emotionally, and not take things all personal.
Not to put too fine a point on it, in this last comment, you're starting to sound hysterical. That's not going to accomplish anything.
"I don't expect Christian Fundamentalists to reach out to me. They are adamant that homosexuals are inferior creatures unworthy of full human status." This just does not reflect reality as I see it through my windshield. That's not Biblical, nor does it conform to what I see.
I don't see even the more fundamentalist end of the Christian community in general trying "to torment, ostracize and segregate through the law." That ain't happening.
Hatin' and hysteria aren't going to get you anywhere. It's not correct, nor is it likely to be effective. As the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Do you think that you're going to hate Christians into liking you?
Not that it's really important, but in my social context, speaking up in defense of Christians is actually far more of a dissent against orthodoxy. I know from experience that speaking here at Blogcritics in any defense of social conservatives invites great abuse, and accusations of hatred and homophobia.
No the right thing to do in my judgement is NOT to jump on the PC bandwagon wagging my fingers at them mean old Christians. It is to try to be tolerant and understanding of people whose beliefs are different than mine, and gently urge others to do the same.
19 - Bob A. Booey
How can a libertarian be a social conservative who believes government should legislate discrimination?
To all those reading this. Does this sound anything like our beloved Senator Al Barger? Let's be honest:
"I'm trying as best I can to apply logic and reason to understanding and reconciling people. As opposed to you, for whom it is (understandably) a more emotional personal issue.
But that doesn't mean that you should abandon logic and reason, but that it's all the more important to try to detach from it emotionally, and not take things all personal."
Al, if you keep saying that you're rational, logical, and unemotional and that your idiosyncratic takes on social issues aren't personal in nature, maybe someday SOMEONE will believe it's true.
Because we all see you as a leader, a smooth politician, a voice of reason who "brings us together" through your deep empathy and mature, adult consideration for the welfare of others.
Give it a rest, buddy.
That is all.
20 - Steve S
I don't see even the more fundamentalist end of the Christian community in general trying "to torment, ostracize and segregate through the law." That ain't happening.
well then Al, you must not keep up on the news. There is legislating pending, and/or legislation about to be sent to the appropriate Houses, which not only prohibit same-sex marriage but also refuse to acknowledge ANY relationships we have, even civil unions.
This is a clear denial of rights/privileges and opportunities that are available to the rest of the citizenry. This is ostracization. Fundamentalist Christians excel at demonizing their opponent. When their opponent is a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen, it amounts to oppression.
But I don't expect you to see that, and hopefully Patrick won't get burnt out by your tactic of trying to run a conversation down with your honey-smelling vinegar. Are you still advocating the mandatory expulsion of all Jews from America?
There is such a thing as a fascist fundamentalist, and in this case it consists solely of Christians and many Americans are currently subject to a form of oppression because of them.
21 - brian
Steve S :
Gay marriage is a difficult topic for me to grasp. I am a conservative Republican, but I try not to incorporate religion into any decisions regarding national legislation. I personally find homesexuality immoral, but I have a hard time signing on for a Constitutional ban. It seems as though many of my fellow conservatives base much of their arguments along the same lines of arguments that were in debate in the 60's regarding interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia). But my question is that since marriage is a fundamentally Christian ceremony in this country, and homosexuality is forbidden in that religion, why not accept civil unions that grant equal rights to marriage but don't carry the "name" marriage?
22 - Patrick Yaeger
Unfortunately, here in Kentucky and in my particular part of this state, the KKK has had a long history. Even recently they put fliers on neighborhood cars advertising their supremacist ideas. I took them to the sheriff's office for what little that was worth.
Recently I spoke with my aunt. She has grandchildren dating People of Color (African Americans in this case). She also has two great-grandchildren who are mixed (African-American/Caucasian). Her late husband's sister adopted two African American children.
Yet my aunt continues to talk about segregating blacks. She continues to ask me if I love black people as if I was betraying the 'white race'. She continues to describe Martin Luther King as a trouble maker. She continues to treat her 4 year old mixed-race great-grandchild like a cross she has to bare.
All this because I simply confronted her when she said something offensive to me and those I love. I could no longer be the coward who overlooked such putrid ideas. I could no longer be the silent complicit witness to immoral wicked ideas circulating within my own family and soon to scar members of that family.
I've tried reasoning with her. I've tried asking her to give up the evil ideas she learned as a child. I've asked her to let go of the pride and stubborness with which she defends these irrational, hate-based ideas. I've asked her how she could continue to feel this way in the face of these children who call her mamaw and greatgrandma. She says she treats them kindly and even loves them while in the same breath saying vile and wicked things about others who share their skin color.
No matter what I say, her pride and stubbornness are more powerful than any reasoned argument or concern I try to discuss with her. Her supremacist beliefs are more important to her than her mixed great grandchildren. It boggles my mind and disturbs me greatly for I always think about my brown-skinned cousins who don't yet have a voice.
I told her she should be ashamed and that her racism is the shame of our family. I didn't let her off the hook this time as I had in the past when I had always given the benefit of the doubt. I had always excused these members of my family by defering to their lack of education or their provincialism or to the fact that they lived in Kentucky and were of an older generation. No more. Having children staring into your eyes and defiantly refusing to SEE them has nothing to with ignorance.
When I read about families rejecting their gay or lesbian children I think of my aunt.
When I read about churches and private religious schools expelling children becasue they or their parents are gay I think of my aunt.
When I talk or discuss with someone why equal protection under the law is so important for gay and lesbian people and they reply by quoting the Bible or speaking about me as immoral or excusing others' prejudice as faith based and okay I think of my aunt.
When will some citizens begin to make the connection that supremacist ideologies are not rational and cannot be reached through discussion and civil discourse. The Christian Fundamentalists, like most fundamentalists of any religion, long ago made up their mind NO MATTER WHAT just like my aunt.
I guess God isn't still speaking to them.
23 - Al Barger
Patrick, I would not defend your aunt for a second. That's just hateful and mean. It's unfortunate that you have that to deal within your own family.
My people are from Kentucky, too. We're in Indiana now, which has a worse historical reputation for Klan nonsense than Kentucky ever did. However, I've not known of any Klan activity anywhere in this part of the state in my lifetime. Thank God for small favors.
To the best of my knowledge, no one in my family was ever involved in that kind of crap. Not that there has never been a maladjusted or unenlightened racial attitude by anyone in the fam ever, but nothing that I know of like your aunt.
Still though, don't blame Christianity for her behavior. You shouldn't generalize from her to all fundamentalists. That would be just as wrong as auntie generalizing from a few black thugs on the local news to all black folks. That nonsense is not Biblical, nor does it reflect the beliefs of all fundamentalists or Christians.
And if I heard anyone claiming to be a Christian and talking like that, you'd see how evil I could be- especially if there were children involved.
Gay gets into somewhat different issues than black, but I'd be pretty crappy about excluding children from gay families. I'd say we have to tolerate it as freedom of association, but I know I'd be shitty if I heard about it near me. That's the kind of stuff that would make me inclined to stick their Bible up their ass and break it off up in them.
Generally, I will tend to somewhat overlook some broad or vague bad attitudes, but become more judgemental as it comes down to bad acts or hatefulness to real, specific people.
24 - Al Barger
re: comment 20 Steve S, you can pack your hostility to me and take a hike. Real specifically, you may wish to withdraw this libelous statement, "Are you still advocating the mandatory expulsion of all Jews from America?" That's a big fat lie from you, as I would never in life say anything remotely like that. Hell, for my money, I'd like to see a bunch more Jews out in my neck of the woods.
But then, that's about the level of the honesty of your whole argument. Anyone who doesn't quite go with your whole agenda is an evil oppressor. Anyone who has any issues with gay marriage is just an evil oppressive demonizer.
That's not true, and you know better when you say it. It's just a cheap attempt at intimidating people, bullying them with the threat that you will demonize them. I'm the wrong audience for that.
Depending on the exact wording, as a state legislator I would probably vote for gay marriage, or certainly at least civil unions. I strongly oppose imposing gay marriage through the judiciary, but that's a whole different set of issues. Likewise, I'm pro-choice and anti-Roe.
Again, you are very welcome to quit lying and libeling me. Thank you.
25 - Steve S
But my question is that since marriage is a fundamentally Christian ceremony in this country, and homosexuality is forbidden in that religion, why not accept civil unions that grant equal rights to marriage but don't carry the "name" marriage?
My answer would be that churches are private organizations. They can have marriages. ANY union that is recognized by the government, whether gay or straight, should be a civil union and 100% the same across the board.
--
Al, I have no hostility towards you.
But then, that's about the level of the honesty of your whole argument. Anyone who doesn't quite go with your whole agenda is an evil oppressor. Anyone who has any issues with gay marriage is just an evil oppressive demonizer.
No Al, I don't know if you remember but my big issue is separation of church and state, moreso than gay marriage even. Someone can hate me all they want, I don't care, they can have issues out the wazoo, I don't care, but when they support governmental discrimination based on biblical prejudice that would most likely fall into the category of 'evil oppressive demonizer'.
It's just a cheap attempt at intimidating people, bullying them with the threat that you will demonize them. I'm the wrong audience for that.
Don't deny it Al. You wrote a paper in college remember? We've talked about it before. I don't bother saving the link, because you put it up whenever I bring the subject up. Now you are going to play possum?
Depending on the exact wording, as a state legislator I would probably vote for gay marriage, or certainly at least civil unions.
You and I have had many conversations about this already. You would vote for gay marriage, you also support complete religious freedom, which (in the example you gave to me) would include condemnation of gay people via signs that would be put in public places. If you don't remember that conversation, I'm not going to dredge it up, I didn't save it, but you supported a religious sign condeming homosexuality being put in a public park. The whole context in which it was laid out was very chilling. It was impossible for you to throw something supportive out there, without making sure you put out something very derogatory at the same time.
The way this thread reads, it's a debate from you on whether Christianity condemns gays or not. That is irrelevant in terms of 'fundamental fascism' as the fascism comes from government. This is about living under an oppressive doctrine, not whether a religion wants to give us warm fuzzies or not.
Sorry, if I ticked you off, Al. I thought you were thicker skinned than that. (And you DID write that paper).