30th July 2008

“The Christian right has co-opted the right to say what is and what is not Christian belief and now they now claim the right to say what is or is not a marriage.”

Anon.

3 Responses to “30th July 2008”

  1. Bornagain A. Theist Says:

    It is the nature of the “right” as well as the nature of Christians to do exactly that. Certainly it is no source of amazement on the surface. What is amazing is how otherwise intelligent people get to a position of being “left” or “right” wing Christians. I was a right wing Church of Christ Christian, and I can tell you, even today (given some time – it’s been a while) exactly why the Church of Christ is the only group of believers on the planet that will ever have a chance of going to heaven. I was intelligent, but I yearned – I think – for something that I could plant myself into that was perfect. Biblically, it is the only “Christian” religion that IS perfect. It took 6 years and thousands of wasted hours to finally see that it was, as all religions on the face of the earth are, a crock of shit… because the Bible is a crock of shit. I had to have an open mind to see that. Perhaps that makes me a “lucky one”.

  2. Critic Says:

    I agree with this quote – in a more general sense, it seems that it is always the more fundamentalist members of any group who like to strictly define the group in question (religious, political, academic, etc.) and regulate the beliefs and actions of that group.

    Is there such a thing as a fundamentalist atheist? I suspect so…..

  3. captainzero1969 Says:

    Truly, they eat their own. Just try being a progressive liberal and still being a “Christian”. Christ, if he was an actual living person and actually said what, two generations after he died, was finally written down by people that didn’t witness the events in question, would not recognize the religion built up around him. Yes, my English teacher hated me for sentences like that.

    I think that society needs to move this argument away from “marriage”, which in the strictest terms is a religious “sacrament”, whatever that might mean. As such, the state has no business being in the marriage business. The state has an interest in the contractual nature of two people wishing to co-habitate, produce and or raise children, combine finances, make medical and end of life decisions, etc. For this reason, I believe the ONLY involvement from the state should be the granting of Civil Unions, which, divorced from its religious baggage, allows for MM, MF and FF combinations. Let “marriage” be something granted by religious institutions. They are free to be as bigoted or as inclusive as they like.

    Chris