| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mark Nutter" |
| Date: |
26 Feb 2004 07:50:25 AM |
| Object: |
Gay marriage and Christian Supremacy |
"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural
roots without weakening the good influence of society." -- George W.
Bush
When I first read the above quote, my first thought was, "How
ridiculous! Does he seriously believe that a couple of gay men getting
married is going to retroactively change the history of the origin of
marriage?" But then I realized that he's not trying to make sense,
he's trying to promote the Christian supremacist agenda.
The Christian supremacist presumes that his religion is, by
definition, superior to all other religions, and consequently the
state is unfairly suppressing and persecuting him if it fails to
endorse and establish his religious views as superior to all others.
We see this quite clearly in cases where Christian supremacists try to
mandate government-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments and
similar symbols of conservative Christianity. The above quote from
George W. made me realize that gay marriage is also a Christian
supremacy issue just as much or more as a homophobia issue.
Part of the Christian supremacist agenda is to seek official
government endorsement of the idea that all good things come from the
conservative Christian God. When Bush refers to the "cultural,
religious, and natural roots" of marriage, he's making an oblique
reference to the idea that everybody, Christian, Jew, pagan, atheist,
whatever--everybody supposedly owes the conservative Christian God a
debt of gratitude for having invented and ordained the institution of
marriage. Obviously, however, the conservative Christian God has not
(in the supremacist's view) ordained gay marriage, since He is
supposed to hate homosexuality.
This puts the Christian supremacist in an awkward position. If
homosexuals can have happy, good marriages without owing it all to the
conservative Christian God, then that thwarts the Christian
supremacist's claim that all good things come exclusively from his
God. On the other hand, if he grants that homosexual marriage is also
instituted and ordained by God, then that would constitute a divine
endorsement of homosexual relationships, and that's anathema to the
supremacist. The only alternative palatable to the Christian
supremacist is to ban gay marriage completely, and that is what they
are trying to do.
Christian supremacists, with the open cooperation if not wholehearted
allegiance of President Bush, are attempting to use the gay marriage
ban to obscure the historical fact that marriage was instituted in
pagan cultures long before the emergence of the Judeo-Christian
tradition. The Christian supremacist wants the US government to lend
its authority to the alternative, revisionist view that marriage owes
its existence to the conservative Christian God, and hence that any
non-conservative-Christian view of marriage is illegitimate and
harmful to the institution as God allegedly ordained it.
This is an agenda that is hostile to the very principle of religious
freedom, and should be opposed by all who take their First Amendment
rights seriously, no matter how we may personally feel about
homosexuality itself.
m
aa#2115
.
|
|
| User: "Davlo" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage and Christian Supremacy |
26 Feb 2004 09:22:29 AM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fddfde37.0402260550.42613ec1@posting.google.com...
"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural
roots without weakening the good influence of society." -- George W.
Bush
When I first read the above quote, my first thought was, "How
ridiculous! Does he seriously believe that a couple of gay men getting
married is going to retroactively change the history of the origin of
marriage?" But then I realized that he's not trying to make sense,
he's trying to promote the Christian supremacist agenda.
The Christian supremacist presumes that his religion is, by
definition, superior to all other religions, and consequently the
state is unfairly suppressing and persecuting him if it fails to
endorse and establish his religious views as superior to all others.
We see this quite clearly in cases where Christian supremacists try to
mandate government-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments and
similar symbols of conservative Christianity. The above quote from
George W. made me realize that gay marriage is also a Christian
supremacy issue just as much or more as a homophobia issue.
Part of the Christian supremacist agenda is to seek official
government endorsement of the idea that all good things come from the
conservative Christian God. When Bush refers to the "cultural,
religious, and natural roots" of marriage, he's making an oblique
reference to the idea that everybody, Christian, Jew, pagan, atheist,
whatever--everybody supposedly owes the conservative Christian God a
debt of gratitude for having invented and ordained the institution of
marriage. Obviously, however, the conservative Christian God has not
(in the supremacist's view) ordained gay marriage, since He is
supposed to hate homosexuality.
This puts the Christian supremacist in an awkward position. If
homosexuals can have happy, good marriages without owing it all to the
conservative Christian God, then that thwarts the Christian
supremacist's claim that all good things come exclusively from his
God. On the other hand, if he grants that homosexual marriage is also
instituted and ordained by God, then that would constitute a divine
endorsement of homosexual relationships, and that's anathema to the
supremacist. The only alternative palatable to the Christian
supremacist is to ban gay marriage completely, and that is what they
are trying to do.
Christian supremacists, with the open cooperation if not wholehearted
allegiance of President Bush, are attempting to use the gay marriage
ban to obscure the historical fact that marriage was instituted in
pagan cultures long before the emergence of the Judeo-Christian
tradition. The Christian supremacist wants the US government to lend
its authority to the alternative, revisionist view that marriage owes
its existence to the conservative Christian God, and hence that any
non-conservative-Christian view of marriage is illegitimate and
harmful to the institution as God allegedly ordained it.
This is an agenda that is hostile to the very principle of religious
freedom, and should be opposed by all who take their First Amendment
rights seriously, no matter how we may personally feel about
homosexuality itself.
m
aa#2115
Excellent post! I'm afraid that there will be less and less freedoms in this
country for those not of the Christian religion, if Bush gets re-elected.
Already, we've seen many proto-Fascist agendas take place since his
Presidency began, such as Ashcroft's anti-terrorist paranoia campaign
against all left-wing liberals, foreigners, and minorities. The manipulation
and censorship of scientific data, the silence and refusal of members of
this administration to speak publicly about the events preceding 9/11, the
illegal detainment of political prisoners in Gitmo, the proposed ban on gay
marriage, the support for organized prayer in school - quite a little
laundry list there. I'm only waiting for the Pogroms against the Jews next.
--
Davlo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gay marriage and Christian Supremacy |
26 Feb 2004 06:30:11 PM |
|
|
On 26 Feb 2004 05:50:25 -0800, (Mark Nutter)
wrote:
"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural
roots without weakening the good influence of society." -- George W.
Bush
When I first read the above quote, my first thought was, "How
ridiculous! Does he seriously believe that a couple of gay men getting
married is going to retroactively change the history of the origin of
marriage?" But then I realized that he's not trying to make sense,
he's trying to promote the Christian supremacist agenda.
The Christian supremacist presumes that his religion is, by
definition, superior to all other religions, and consequently the
state is unfairly suppressing and persecuting him if it fails to
endorse and establish his religious views as superior to all others.
We see this quite clearly in cases where Christian supremacists try to
mandate government-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments and
similar symbols of conservative Christianity. The above quote from
George W. made me realize that gay marriage is also a Christian
supremacy issue just as much or more as a homophobia issue.
Part of the Christian supremacist agenda is to seek official
government endorsement of the idea that all good things come from the
conservative Christian God. When Bush refers to the "cultural,
religious, and natural roots" of marriage, he's making an oblique
reference to the idea that everybody, Christian, Jew, pagan, atheist,
whatever--everybody supposedly owes the conservative Christian God a
debt of gratitude for having invented and ordained the institution of
marriage. Obviously, however, the conservative Christian God has not
(in the supremacist's view) ordained gay marriage, since He is
supposed to hate homosexuality.
This puts the Christian supremacist in an awkward position. If
homosexuals can have happy, good marriages without owing it all to the
conservative Christian God, then that thwarts the Christian
supremacist's claim that all good things come exclusively from his
God. On the other hand, if he grants that homosexual marriage is also
instituted and ordained by God, then that would constitute a divine
endorsement of homosexual relationships, and that's anathema to the
supremacist. The only alternative palatable to the Christian
supremacist is to ban gay marriage completely, and that is what they
are trying to do.
Christian supremacists, with the open cooperation if not wholehearted
allegiance of President Bush, are attempting to use the gay marriage
ban to obscure the historical fact that marriage was instituted in
pagan cultures long before the emergence of the Judeo-Christian
tradition. The Christian supremacist wants the US government to lend
its authority to the alternative, revisionist view that marriage owes
its existence to the conservative Christian God, and hence that any
non-conservative-Christian view of marriage is illegitimate and
harmful to the institution as God allegedly ordained it.
This is an agenda that is hostile to the very principle of religious
freedom, and should be opposed by all who take their First Amendment
rights seriously, no matter how we may personally feel about
homosexuality itself.
m
aa#2115
Very nicely stated. I know you are correct, as I was brought up as a
christian. Or, they tried to bring me up as a christian. I tried, and
tried to be their good christian up until I was old enough to face
reality on my own. Boy did my brain get kicked around adapting to
that!! But I'm ok, I made it over to this side, that of reality.
Mentally maimed but not stupid.
The bible *does* say conquer the world, in various words and passages,
and wealthy, powerful people are doing that now. But not for the
reasons stated. You see, they pick and choose from a book that too
many voters are beholden to.
This nation is being taken over by a very powerful and dangerous
religion, right now. It may be too late.
On 11/2/2004 we must replace the religious control freaks with a real
government.
A few copy/pastes that relate follow:
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I
did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade
Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came
for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when
they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
Then They Came for Me
by
Stephen F. Rohde, Esq.
First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a Muslim.
Then they came to detain immigrants indefinitely solely upon the
certification of the Attorney General, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't an immigrant.
Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their
attorneys, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect.
Then they came to prosecute non-citizens before secret military
commissions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a non-citizen.
Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak
and peek" searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to
hide.
Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration
and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I
didn't speak up because I had stopped participating in any groups.
Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because
it aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and
I didn't speak up because...... I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me....... and by that time no one was left to
speak up.
Stephen Rohde, a constitutional lawyer and President of the ACLU of
Southern California, is indebted to the inspiration of Rev. Martin
Niemoller (1937).
drift
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
