|
June 27, 2005
RINOS smash stereotypes with new Carnival
There's a great new Carnival, certain to appeal to anyone who reads this blog (regardless of whether they agree with me). It's called the "RINO Sightings Carnival," (a product of the Raging Rinos -- a group created by the Commissar): for secular and moderate conservatives who don’t drink the party Kool-Aid on issues such as whether it’s legal for dudes to diddle dudes and all that God business. Republican, without all the crazy. The RINO Sightings Carnival is hosted this week by a longtime favorite of Classical Values, SayUncle, and of course he does a great job of hosting. While I am sure that the individual bloggers who've affiliated themselves with the Raging Rinos do not all agree with each other, I have noted a certain ability to view things logically instead of emotionally, as well as the ability to sort things out according to individual issues. This post on the ACLU is as good an example of any. Blogger Pigilito notes that contrary to the usual assumptions, the ACLU was supporting the right of a student "suspended at Liberty High School in Las Vegas in September for wearing shirts bearing religious symbols" -- in violation of a school dress code. Pigilito linked to the case because it dispels the popular stereotype, even though he agreed with the court's upholding of the dress code. ....this is not intended to support the ACLU's position in this case. I posted this news because the ACLU is often portrayed by the religious right as being a first cousin to the devil. I thought it nice to discomfit them, however slightly.I hadn't heard about this case, but I also agree with the trial court. And like Pigilito, I would agree with the ACLU only if religious messages alone were excluded -- which it appears they are not. I'm not surprised that the case didn't receive much attention. Things which defy stereotypes usually don't. Speaking of stereotype smashing, don't miss Environmental Republican's fisking of the Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial attacking the prosecution of the Bio2005 protesters: Whether or not the protesters intended for a cop to die, the fact is that he did indeed die as a result of breaking up a scuffle that the protesters started and the police were forced to attempt to break up.I had two posts along similar lines, and I'm glad to find another kindred spirit. With a touch of tongue-in-something satire, SayUncle also points to Bill Hobbs' link (via Donald Sensing) to these thoughts from Chicago Boyz on homosexuality: ... by calling a homosexual union marriage, and making it a Constitutional right, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and soon many like-minded courts around the country, are more or less intentionally making Christianity illegal. Repeat: Christianity is being made illegal. The teaching that homosexuality is a sin is embedded in Christianity. It is in the Pauline letters. There is no getting around it. I have heard the counter-arguments, and they don't cut any ice. The Christian teaching against homosexuality is organic, it was part and parcel of the attack on the pagan society of the Roman Empire and it is fundamental to the Christian conception of marriage and sexuality. So, again, if gay marriage is a Constitutional right, then anyone preaching the moral teaching of Christianity is committing a hate crime or otherwise attacking the exercise of a Constitutional right. I object to this as a Christian, obviously.While I don't think Christianity ever should have been an "attack on the pagan society of the Roman Empire," much less bound today by such past mistakes, addressing this again right now is way beyond the scope of this post. (However I've covered the topic in a lengthy series of essays.) But it just goes to show what a thought-provoking and enjoyable Carnival this is. Don't miss it! And you RINOs out there, you know who you are. Join in! posted by Eric on 06.27.05 at 09:44 AM
Comments
"So, again, if gay marriage is a Constitutional right, then anyone preaching the moral teaching of Christianity is committing a hate crime or otherwise attacking the exercise of a Constitutional right. I object to this as a Christian, obviously." He has a right to object to anybody's exercise of a Constitutional right. He has a Constitutional right to object to an atheist being an atheist, since all the Pauline epistles he cites obviously presuppose a God. The atheist will, nonetheless, continue to be an atheist until he chooses otherwise. Both the atheist and the anti-atheist are exeercising their Constitutional rights in arguing against each other's premises. That's what it's all about. What a fool not to grasp that simple concept. I don't want any federal courts establishing homosexual marriage as a Constitutional right. That's the surest way to get a Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment. I've concluded more and more that the definition of marriage must be left to the people of each state, and I would favor a Constitutional amendment to that effect. Or else, as some have suggested, leave the definition of marriage entirely to the churches. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · June 27, 2005 02:44 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
'tongue-in-something'
heh.