Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics, Part 2

The tongue-in-cheek gay term for we heterosexuals is 'breeders', which I still find funny indeed.

There is no reasonable nor rational argument against homosexuality, or against homosexual unions/marriage. All which are put forward - and I do mean all - are pretty quickly traceable to the speaker's cultural biases, or to some affiliation with a group or authority which has put a 'bad' label on the issue. This is as intellectually vacuous and as morally repugnant as is racism or as is holding women to be inferior. I find it hard to think of any issue less challenging of the mind than this one, except perhaps creationism.

If you peruse the shelves at Chapters or any of the larger book stores, you won't be able to find, in the 'for dummies' series of self-education books, one titled "Fundamentalist Christianity for Dummies" for the obvious reason that publishers know sales would be marginal, the two sets being pretty much identical, like, for example, "Nuclear Physics for Nuclear Physicists".

0 Replies

I find it quite comical that those who are against homosexual marriage feel they will degrade the "sanctity of marriage." In the US, 49 percent of heterosexual marriages end up in divorce. What "sanctity" are they talking about?

0 Replies

I would surmise that for the Bush Administration the national interest would encompass transforming the world in America's image in terms of both capitalism and judeo/christian morality/ethics. (mainly by means of military force/dominance) which gives us a leadership based on a combination of Rumsfeld/Ashcroft and Pat Robertson etal. Amen.

0 Replies

c.i. only god knows Smile

Overpopulation is killing the planet, and Bush says - probagate!

Fundamentalism's in big trouble, obviously.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

There is no reasonable nor rational argument against homosexuality... All which are put forward - and I do mean all - are pretty quickly traceable to the speaker's cultural biases, or to some affiliation with a group or authority which has put a 'bad' label on the issue.

Would you say that there is a "reasonable or rational" argument against pedophilia, and if so, what is it and how does it differ from the arguments made against homosexuality?

0 Replies

Would you say that there is a "reasonable or rational" argument against pedophilia, and if so, what is it and how does it differ from the arguments made against heterosexuality?

0 Replies

Especially since the majority of pedophiles engage in heterosexual behaviour.

0 Replies

There is a body of knowledge about the effects of pedophilia on young children and their mental health. Of course, an adult's sexual activity with a young child does not always result in trauma for the child. But it usually does, and there is always the danger that it will. Homosexuality is a matter of two consenting adults. That's the difference to me.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Just out of curiosity, how many cultures in the world condone homosexual marriages? Any?

No takers on this?

0 Replies

The Netherlands, certain sects of Hinduism, some Native American groups before their eradication by Europeans, that's just off the top of my head.

0 Replies

Huh! I had no idea about the Hindu perspective...

Interesting link on Hinduism and Homosexuality

0 Replies

McGentrix, perhaps you should look into the history of India in the period ~800CE-1200. Much of the literature is in French, but that shouldn't be a problem for you, right? Wink

0 Replies

Here's the latest email from the Family Research Council. Now I feel so much more secure knowing our religious leaders will tell us all how we should live. It will be interesting to see how the Bush admin handles this political pressure

Quote:

January 12, 2004

VP Dick Cheney Comments on Federal Marriage Amendment

Last Friday, Vice President Cheney was asked to comment on a federal marriage amendment currently in Congress. He stated that the opinions he shared on the subject of homosexual unions during the 2000 campaign were still his views, but that President Bush will be the one to make the decision to support an amendment, and that he (Cheney) will support the President's policy. Therein lies the problem, the President, while coming out strong in support of protecting marriage has only made vague comments on how to combat the current assault it is under. While it is true the President has little to do legislatively with a constitutional amendment, he has a very powerful bully pulpit he can use to encourage both Congress and the states to pass a strong amendment. In his State of the Union Address, President Bush should declare his active support for a constitutional amendment to define marriage in the United States as the union of one man and one woman. If you agree, I urge you to contact the President today and let him know.

Additional Resources
Email President Bush
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=LK03L71&f=WU04A06

Pastors in the Public Square

Yesterday Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston gave a sermon at the annual Red Mass, which is dedicated to judges and lawyers. As he has on other occasions, the Archbishop spoke clearly about the need to protect the institution of marriage, and the duty of Christian politicians to use their specific vocation as public officials to defend marriage. Another Catholic bishop, Raymond Burke from Wisconsin (recently named the new Archbishop of Saint Louis), introduced guidelines prohibiting pro-abortion legislators who call themselves Catholic from fully and publicly participating in the worship of their faith. These and other similar actions by Christian pastors are much needed in the coming months as politicians feel justified in using faith as a political tool while rejecting their duty to uphold the same faith in the public square. The right to life and the sanctity of marriage are non-negotiable moral and historical principles that public officials cannot separate from their political office. It is good to have church leaders reminding all of us of this responsibility. Church leaders have a duty to help the faithful live out their Christian faith, and whether we are politicians or voters our pastors should guide us, inspire us, and when needed, correct us.

Additional Resources
"One Flesh": Sample Sermon Outline for Marriage Protection Week 2003
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=PD03J02&f=WU04A06

Americans Oppose a Separation of Faith and Politics

A poll conducted last summer for the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 41% of Americans actually believe there has been too little reference to religious faith and prayer by politicians--as opposed to only 21% who say there has been too much. President Bush specifically has been savaged by his critics for using religious language in his speeches, calling terrorists "evildoers," and supporting public funding of faith-based social services. Yet the same poll showed that 62% of the public thinks that Bush mentions his faith the right amount and 11% say he does it too little--as opposed to only 14% who say he talks about his faith too much. Meanwhile, a Zogby poll released last week showed some dramatic differences between the "red states" that went for Bush in 2000 and the "blue states" that went for Gore. In the Bush states, 51% of voters attend religious services at least weekly, versus only 34% in the Gore states. And the increasingly secular Democratic party may have trouble gaining ground this year, given that even in the Gore states, 51% want a President who is "deeply religious" -- something desired by a whopping 67% in the Bush states

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Here's the latest email from the Family Research Council. Now I feel so much more secure knowing our religious leaders will tell us all how we should live.

Two questions:

1) Are these really your religious leaders? (You refer to them as "our religious leaders".)

2) Aren't liberal leaders likewise always telling us how we should live? In fact, your chief complaint seems to be that these other folks want to use the government to force you to live as they think you should, when you seem quite happy to let liberals use the government to force us to live as liberals think we should.

0 Replies

Lola,

There seems to be a problem with polls taken, announcing that a percentage of any 100 or even 1000 people set precedent in how the rest of the United States thinks on issues.

The polsters, if in California, or San Francisco, would receive a much different answer to the question of fundamentalism in the oval office.

Scrat,

My opinion is that liberals have a better understanding of what the Constitution is all about - seperating religion from political issues, as it should be, although I know some liberal politicians (and liberal voters) attend church, and are devout in their spirtual beliefs.

There isn't anything wrong with religious belief, so long as those beliefs dont' affect the rights of all citizens. GW and his cronies are hypocrites.

0 Replies

Stradee - I am aware that the Constitution wisely prohibits the establishment of a national religion, but beyond that, what language do you refer to when you write that liberals "understand" it to call for "separating religion from political issues"? I've read it, and find nothing I would interpret in this way.

Perhaps liberals read the Constitution in much the same way that some religious fundamentalists read the Bible: they begin with a notion they wish to support and then read and "interpret" until--SHAZAAM!--lo and behold they find exactly that for which they were searching.

My experience of liberals is that they do not care much for the letter of the Constitution, and do most of their reading in the spaces between the words, rather than considering the actual meaning of the words themselves.

0 Replies

Scrat, I am a liberal. Grew up Catholic. Read the bible, and consider those teachings to be a valuable part of my life. I was also brought up in a family who also considered the rights and priviledges of folks who wearn't religious.

When I see an administration use religion as their base, then deny the rights of all citizens, proclaiming that God is guiding those decisions, I get a bit testy.

If you believe in God, and I assume that you have spiritual beliefs, then you also believe that God (or a spiritual being) created all living things.

God doesn't make junk.

Religion today can either guide, which many churches to their credit do, or they can choose to condemn. Seems to me, and many others, that the crap spewing from Washington has very little to do with spiritual principles.

Politics is politics.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Stradee - I am aware that the Constitution wisely prohibits the establishment of a national religion, but beyond that, what language do you refer to when you write that liberals "understand" it to call for "separating religion from political issues"? I've read it, and find nothing I would interpret in this way.

Perhaps liberals read the Constitution in much the same way that some religious fundamentalists read the Bible: they begin with a notion they wish to support and then read and "interpret" until--SHAZAAM!--lo and behold they find exactly that for which they were searching.

My experience of liberals is that they do not care much for the letter of the Constitution, and do most of their reading in the spaces between the words, rather than considering the actual meaning of the words themselves.

I don't want anyone "telling me" how to live -- not religious leaders or liberals or conservatives or anyone else.

I am a competent, adult human being -- and I can decide for myself "how to live."

If I break laws -- I expect to be punished or restrained -- and I factor that into "how I want to live."

Scrat, a question, if I may:

Do you not see that many of us truly do not want the religious sensibilities of what I acknowledge to be the majority...

...to intude on us unnecessarily?

I despise the idea that supposedly we are now a "nation under God" -- because I do not even know if there is a God -- and I suspect neither does anyone else who says those words.

I despise the idea that supposedly we are a nation with our "trust in God" -- because I do not even know if there is a God -- and I suspect neither does anyone else who supposedly puts their trust there.

My own assessment of most political protestations of supposed love of God is bullshit -- and this stuff on our money and in the pledge to our country is the product of that bullshit.

And lastly, I am tired of this "in your face" attitude of the religious of our country.

I want freedom FROM religion -- because frankly, there are very few things on this planet that I trust less than religion -- AND ITS ADHERENTS.

And the least divisive way of obtaining that freedom is for the law -- as interpreted by the Supreme Court -- to ensure it.

The Constitution is not the end-all of documents -- and reading between the lines and between the words is something that has been done from the very beginning.

Am I making sense -- or am I, in your opinion, off base on this?

0 Replies

Quote:

The right to life and the sanctity of marriage are non-negotiable moral and historical principles that public officials cannot separate from their political office. It is good to have church leaders reminding all of us of this responsibility. Church leaders have a duty to help the faithful live out their Christian faith, and whether we are politicians or voters our pastors should guide us, inspire us, and when needed, correct us.

Scrat,

It is this that I'm talking about. I agree with Stradee, the distinction between this group and most others (at least non-fanatical liberals of either party, non-fanatical Democrats, non-fanatical Republicans and non-fanatical conservatives) is that they (the non-fanatics) work to provide an opportunity for the people to exercise their own judgment in matters that should be personal preference. The FRC and those voters it cultivates, GW, Rove, Tom DeLay and Ashcroft, at least, are not interested in giving us a chance to make our own choices. They're interested only in punitive, guilt provoking methods of coercion. This is dangerous stuff when it's in the White House, Congress and soon to be in control in the courts. If a liberal group with this kind of orientation were about to take control of our courts, I'd be just as adamant about resisting it in the voting booth this Fall.

You do see the difference, don't you Scrat? I surely hope so.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I don't want anyone "telling me" how to live -- not religious leaders or liberals or conservatives or anyone else. I am a competent, adult human being -- and I can decide for myself "how to live." If I break laws -- I expect to be punished or restrained -- and I factor that into "how I want to live."

Scrat, a question, if I may:

Do you not see that many of us truly do not want the religious sensibilities of what I acknowledge to be the majority... ...to intrude on us unnecessarily?

... Am I making sense -- or am I, in your opinion, off base on this?

Frank,

You are making perfect sense. And I agree with you in most of this. Where I think we diverge is at the notion that if a concept springs--in part or wholly--from someone's religious beliefs, government should not give it the same consideration they would give any other concept derived from a purely secular viewpoint.

Like you I want NEITHER those on the right nor those on the left telling me how I should live, think, speak or copulate. :wink: However, I do not automatically assume that an idea or proposal from a liberal source is automatically verboten, and neither do I make that assumption when the source is a religious one. As I have written many times in these discussions in the past, the only issue to me is whether the idea is (a) allowed by law and (b) a good idea.

When we start from the presumption that those who cite their religion as the source of their ideas should not have the ear of government, we are advocating the stifling of religious freedom, and engaging in precisely the kind of marginalization of religious adherents that I believe the "do not establish" clause was intended to prevent. Back when the Constitution was written, it was common for governments to establish a state religion, and doing so automatically marginalized the voices and limited the rights of those of other religions. Arguing that the ideas of fundamentalist Christians should not be considered by government because they are the ideas of fundamentalist Christians marginalizes those people and that religion in precisely the way the first amendment seeks to prevent.

That's my take on it.

0 Replies

Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics, Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know