Is George Bush a fundamentalist christian?

Religious Leaders Assail Amendment on Gay Marriage
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: June 4, 2004

Officials of several religious organizations, including the Presbyterian, Lutheran and Episcopal churches, sent an open letter to Congress yesterday opposing the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

"Although we have differing opinions on rights for same-sex couples, we believe the Federal Marriage Amendment reflects a fundamental disregard for individual civil rights and ignores differences among our nation's many religious traditions," the letter said. The United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association, which recognize same-sex marriages, also signed the letter. So did representatives of the Anti-Defamation League, the Union for Reform Judaism, the liberal Alliance of Baptists and the Quakers.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, helped orchestrate the letter. As United Church of Christ minister, he said, "I am disturbed that even though I can perform a religious ritual to unite a same-gender couple, the state won't recognize it because some different religious group thinks I am theologically wrong."

Equal is enough........ you guys are act like you have the only say in who runs the country! Get a life dude and quit whining all the time........

Shrek and the "transgender agenda"

President Bush's chief of faith-based activities stood in the White House the other day and said that while Iraq drew so much attention, there was another war, right here at home, we should heed: The culture war. (What better way to distract Americans from the war in Iraq than promoting cultural difference?)

Well, here's a sure sign of culture war: A right-wing group has watched a children's cartoon and sees moral Armageddon. Remember when Jerry Falwell deconstructed Tinky-Winky and saw not a purple Teletubby but the color of gay pride -- and a gay pride symbol instead of a triangle-shaped antenna?

Now, Lou Sheldon's Traditional Values Coalition is alerting parents to yet another danger lurking in children's entertainment. This time, the offender is a supposedly "transgender" bartender in Shrek 2. This bartender has stubble yet wears a dress and has "female breasts," the TVC alert warns. Confusing matters further, the bartender's voice is that of Larry King.

TVC watched the movie and details the offending passages: "During a dance scene at the end of the movie, this transgendered man expresses sexual desire for Prince Charming, jumps on him, and both tumble to the floor. In another scene in the movie, Shrek and Donkey need to be rescued from a dungeon where they are chained against the wall. The rescue is conducted by Pinocchio who is asked to lie so his nose will grow long enough for one of the smaller cartoon characters to use it as a bridge to reach Shrek and Donkey. Donkey encourages him to lie about something and suggests he lie about wearing women's underwear. When he denies wearing women's underwear, his nose begins to grow."

For all this and more, read TVC's report, "A Gender Identity Disorder Goes Mainstream," which helpfully explains "the transgender agenda and the effort to deconstruct the biological reality of male and female." DreamWorks is helping in this effort by "promoting cross dressing and transgenderism in this animated film," TVC says.

Even if all the quotations noted by Fox are valid, they must be understood along with the quotations which I've offered up (and there are many more of both sorts) and much in the way of historical information which shows the variances of religious thought (or absence of it) in early American history. There is no singularity of view. There is no adequate justification, logical or legal, to insist that America ought to provide a special dispensation to the Christian faith - or any specific version of it.

Blatham writes:

Quote:

Even if all the quotations noted by Fox are valid, they must be understood along with the quotations which I've offered up (and there are many more of both sorts) and much in the way of historical information which shows the variances of religious thought (or absence of it) in early American history. There is no singularity of view. There is no adequate justification, logical or legal, to insist that America ought to provide a special dispensation to the Christian faith - or any specific version of it.

I agree. Nor should there be any prejudice/bigotry/bias/discrimination/unreasonable accusations against those who profess the Christian faith or any other faith.