Tag Archives: bigots

Marriage March

You know who deserves a march in defense of their rights? People who already have the right to marry, obviously! On March 23 (or March 26 – these people aren’t good with numbers), the Family Research Council will join likeminded buffoons in marching through Washington, D.C. in support of California’s Proposition 8, the constitutionality of which will be evaluated in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry beginning that same day.

On March 23, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing arguments in the Hollingsworth v. Perry case, which will determine if California’s Proposition 8 measure is constitutional. This will determine whether “same-sex marriage” will become recognized and whether Americans will have the right to protect marriage.

With the legal arguments being heard, FRC has various resources available on marriage from religious, legal, and cultural perspectives. Visit our Why Marriage Matters site to learn more and to find out how you can educate others about the importance of traditional marriage.

Additionally, FRC will be joining other organizations to promote traditional marriage through participating in the Marriage March on March 23rd. Marriage March 2013 will feature various speakers that will empower and motivate you to promote the values of traditional marriage within your community. Click here to learn more about the Marriage March and to find out how you can get involved.

What a pathetic bunch of bigots. I went through and read their arguments for “Why Marriage Matters.” It’s the same nonsense we’ve been hearing this entire time (and the type of crap that is thankfully dying out in American society): society will disintegrate, morality will be compromised, God will send his wrath, and of course, what about the children!? The Family Research Council is having a really hard time pushing their vile message as they slip into irrelevance, and I’m sure they hope this march will increase their visibility.

This stunt is comparable to racist white people marching to condemn desegregation, or more recently, Glenn Beck’s rally for idiots on the Washington Mall. I hope the crowd that shows up for this laughable little event is as small as their minds.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Distinguishing Sincere from Opportunstic

Brother Jed

An old man putting his insanity on display.
Photo credit: Wikipedia

Brother Jed is batshit crazy. There’s no doubt about it. A man who has spent 38 years of his life traveling the country in order to tell college students that they are doomed to an eternity in Hell lest they accept Jesus as their lord and savior is certifiably bonkers. I have my suspicions that as he fades into old age his condition has grown worse, but I can’t confirm that.

When Brother Jed made an appearance at a local university, the resident skeptic organization politely invited him to speak to their group. I attended the meeting and listened to what Jed had to say. There was plenty of the anticipated petulant condemnations, but Brother Jed did have some personal insight that I did not expect. Describing his experiences on various campuses, he recalled a time when a nonbeliever had come to his defense amid the onslaught of chastisement from Christian college students. The secular student argued that despite his disagreements with Brother Jed, he did not doubt that Jed was sincere in his lunacy. The student continued that he was skeptical of the sincerity of the “Christian” students berating Brother Jed – for if they truly believed what they claimed, they would be doing the exact same as Jed.

I have come to the same conclusion. During my extensive interaction with the religious, it is quite clear that the ones who dedicate their lives to their faith are the ones who are most convicted in their belief. It is a point that has also been made by Sam Harris: he has said often that indeed the most fervent believers on September 11, 2001 were the hijackers. It is then here that a clear line must be drawn – between the fervent believers and the ruthless opportunists.

Fundamentalists – henceforth deemed “sincere believers” – range in the amount of threat they pose to civil, peaceful living. On one end of the spectrum you have Brother Jed, whose lunatic rantings are essentially harmless. In fact, people like Brother Jed and others of the mentally-ill evangelical variety probably do a great deal of good for the secular community. (When a psychotic slimeball vomits putrid messages of intolerance and hostility upon passerby on college campuses, the group that stands up and tells students to be themselves seems quite welcoming.) On the other end, there are the violent faithful – the jihadists and abortion clinic bombers – who have no reservations about harming others to advance their beliefs.

Opportunists, on the other hand, are almost universally harmful, some more than others. The level of conviction among this vile segment of the religious community is often unclear. In this category I place such groups as the Westboro Baptist Church, the Family Research Council, and the Catholic Church. The goal of these groups is completely self-serving (whereas the sincere believers are genuinely concerned with continuing what they believe to be a God-ordained mission). The opportunists seek money, power, recognition. Those desires are not in and of themselves harmful, but opportunistic religious groups rarely seek means to their ends that don’t lay to waste certain segments of the population on the way. In the case of Westboro, it’s American soldiers. For the Family Research Council, it’s homosexuals. The Catholic Church’s primary victims may be its very adherents!

The point I am trying to make is not that the attention of the nonreligious community should be focused more on one group or the other – sincere believers and opportunists both present the potential for tangible harm to others. Rather, I think that it is important to make the distinction because the approach to be made in defeating these groups is necessarily different.

In the case of the believers, one must argue with the intention of dismantling the belief. Because this group is so committed to what they believe, the only thing that can shake them from continuing their wretched crusades is to crumble the foundation upon which they stand. By no means is this an easy task. Such deeply held beliefs are difficult to shake; and in cases such as Brother Jed, it may indeed be too late to teach an old dog new tricks. There are, however, some who are not beyond hope – and I don’t believe our efforts are wasted in discussion with them.

Tactics to dismantle the opportunists may not be based in arguments against their belief. After all, it is difficult sometimes to understand specifically what their beliefs are, and they are unlikely to be affected by reasonable arguments against such beliefs. There’s a reason that the Family Research Council doesn’t care about current scientific understanding of homosexuality and that the Catholic Church maintains antiquated beliefs about contraceptives and abortion. To abandon such premises would be to forfeit their positions of power, so they are not interested in updating their principles. Instead, the plan of attack against these groups must be legal. Keep the sickness of Catholicism from influencing health care law. Thrash and shred attempts by anti-gay groups to legalize “gay therapy.” By all means continue to expose their nonsense for what it is for the benefit of onlookers, but understand that truly defeating these forces of evil cannot be accomplished by debate alone.

Leave a comment

Filed under Atheism/Religion

Sometimes opinion columns feature really bad opinions

The USA Today published an article yesterday by Charlotte Allen (the goon who wrote this article in 2009 and was subsequently ridiculed by none other than Mr. PZ Myers here and here), who argues that “same-sex marriage isn’t a question for courts” and that we should “leave gay marriage to voters and state legislatures.”

I’m not going to dedicate much time to a long-winded response (most of her points have already taken a thorough beating in the comments), but I did want to point out a couple of flaws in her argument.

I’ve had this debate before with friends: Should the issue of marriage equality be relegated to the states, or do we need a national decision? The answer seems pretty obvious to me. If you leave the decision up to the states, you’re going to end up with some states that vote to legalize gay marriage, and some that choose to outlaw it. The problem there? Gay people live in all states. Yes, even the deepest red states are home to gay people. Gasp.

As much as some people would like to pretend that gay people will just get up and move to places that allow same-sex marriage, we all know that this is not possible for many. Gay people have jobs, families and other commitments that keep them stationary just like heterosexual people.

Allen argues that federal legislation on the issue is “[forcing] gay marriage down people’s throats.” If the absurdity of her stance wasn’t already apparent, this little statement should solidify her position on the side of idiocy. In what way is allowing all people the right to marry whomever they want shoving an issue down anyone’s throat? I don’t hear gay people complaining that federal recognition of straight marriage is somehow forcing it down their throats.

If the argument is that allowing gay marriage somehow destroys the sanctity of marriage – too bad. Sanctity is defined as “the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly,” which means that defending something on the grounds of its sanctity won’t stand up to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Marriage is something that affords certain benefits to those able to obtain it, and it must be recognized for all people in consenting, adult relationships. Your support for “traditional marriage” is antiquated and bigoted, Mrs. Allen. We must fight to gain equality for all Americans, so that they may pursue happiness in their own ways.

2 Comments

Filed under Politics