Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Research this!

By Capt. Fogg

Sometimes it feels like trying to explain calculus to a deaf canary. The idea that permitting anything some religious group doesn't like is infringing on their self-given right to tell other people what to do or to punish them for doing or not doing it, seems impossible to counter no matter how obvious or how long you try. I've tried for a long time, but it's like the Shroud of Turin, even if you could show it's made from polyester and has a made in Taiwan tag its authenticity returns again and again.

In the interest of perpetuating the kind of de facto but illegal kind of control they have exerted over private and public affairs for so long, they have invented a mythology wherein our government really owes so much to 21st century esoteric Christianist philosophy, that it's best simply to let delusional perverts and enemies of freedom dictate to us regardless of contrary laws and public sentiment.

Take the Family Research Council whose President Tony Perkins, a man whose face seems to belie any assertions of straightness, insists that allowing such people in the military as offend his flock is -- wait for this -- infringing on the rights of those pretend Christians who also serve: the right to be a bigot that is. It would "undermine religious liberty."

Now I don't recall that the Constitution confers or protects or affirms any such rights. It only tells the government not to establish an official religion. It says nothing about protecting the prejudices of religious bullies with neurotic phobias about sex. It says nothing about creating an army that President Tony Perkins feels comfortable with at whatever the cost may be to the religious and personal freedom of others.

President Tony Perkins isn't likely to remember that when President Truman integrated the armed forces, it offended the "rights" of racists in the very same way. Anyone who simply couldn't bear the thought of being in the same barracks with one of those lesser races God wanted to keep separate from his own light skinned people, just had to leave and of course the same sort of people will be offended by sharing a foxhole with someone with different sexual preferences. You know -- that's just too damned bad, President Tony Perkins and I'm quite sure our military will cope quite nicely and for God's sake, give it up and call Rentboy.com -- you know you want to.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

11 Comments:

  • Excellent post. I hope you don't mind that I cited it over at my place.

    By Blogger Mustang Bobby, at 5:06 AM  

  • Thank you, of course I don't mind!

    By Blogger Capt. Fogg, at 8:20 AM  

  • So... in a post condemning Perkins' bigotry towards gays, you ridicule him twice by implying that he himself is homosexual, as though being gay is a negative thing, and something to be ashamed of.

    But Perkins is the bigot here, right?

    By Anonymous John S., at 8:24 AM  

  • Why is it thise that DO NOT serve have so much to say.
    If Mr.perkins would have served as well as those who oppse it and they had a real encounter that tramitized them them might have some validity, this here is smoke and mirrors and having served 20+ years my voice DOES count, so the elimin ation of the DADT is a freat thing.

    how would Mr perkins feel if we started to establish what type of christianity could be spoken about and of since there are so many versions of it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:31 AM  

  • I'm with John. As a gay man, I found your post horribly offensive. your point about homophobia is completely lost when you yourself employ it to ridicule Perkins because he "looks gay". Sometimes I wonder which is worse for the gay civil rights movement; open, raw bigotry like Perkins', or the latent homophobia exhibited by so called "allies" like the author of this post.

    By Anonymous gaylib, at 9:04 AM  

  • Just wanted to pass on some friendly advice. By saying "It only tells the government not to establish an official religion," you are repeating a line of the Christianists. The actual constitutional provision is much more broad: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:51 AM  

  • I believe the point being made is outspoken anti-gay people are frequently found to be self-loathing gay people who cannot handle their own sexuality.

    By Blogger John, at 10:37 AM  

  • Can you say you are surprised? I've been saying for years, the "Christian" right is a group that, the moment you hedge their ability to trample other people's rights, they scream about discrimination and persecution.
    I think it was John Amato who summed up nicely who the RR can hold their two opposing ideas. They believe that they are the moral majority because they believe they are the founders. They believe their own revisionist history, and that G~d led them to the US and orchestrated our founding for them. As for the "persecuted minority", they believe so strongly in their inherent birthright to run the country that they see any attempt to hedge their power as persecution. Because they are appointed by G~d to lead, any act against them is anti-Christian bigotry and persecution. Because they believe G~d wants them to lead the US by mandate of their religion, anything against the RR impinges their religious freedom.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:53 PM  

  • The Religious Right seems to have forgotten that many people that first came to America came to escape religious persecution. And their persecutors were other Christians (Catholics vs Protestants and vice-versa, for instance). The first amendment not only protects religions from government and government from religions but it also protects religions from each other.

    By Anonymous JCtx, at 1:11 PM  

  • Tony Perkins (the dull PAC man, not the actor) is so homophobic I am sure Freud would have a field day finding out what made Perkins gay.

    By Blogger James, at 1:55 PM  

  • The first amendment not only protects religions from government and government from religions but it also protects religions from each other.

    Based on the recent history of bigotry expressed towards certain faiths -- i.e. Muslims -- I'd say that part of the First Amendment is not holding its own.

    By Blogger Mustang Bobby, at 5:07 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home