Pages

Jun 23, 2013

The Good Christians

Each time we near a landmark decision, vote, review of some statute on whether same-sex equality should be legislated as The Right Thing, we run into bigoted windbags vowing to fight it tooth and nail as being in violation of religious liberties.

This time Donohue and other assorted wingnuts are vowing to defy the upcoming SCOTUS rulings should it undo status quo. Yes, shades of Wallace in 1960s Alabama.

Luckily we live in the 21st century—barely—so any defiance of the law would be as effective as the Arizona Secretary of State, Ken Bennett, insisting on a black man's Obama's elusive ability to prove that he was not born in Kenya, but not Romney's because white.

To be fair, I need to at least predict what I expect the SCOTUS to do. On the Prop 8 case, the likely scenario would be for the wise ones to cleverly reject Prop 8. It'd be hypocritical of Kennedy to now say that equality was only for Romer, but it'd be a death knell for him, and specially Roberts to strike down Prop 8 and open the floodgates for gay rights in all states. So we can be sure that it will not be
struck down on anything that broad. What is likely to happen is Prop 8 struck down on some narrow technicality of California's constitution, such as the defendants not having any legal standing, or that you cannot take away a right that gays had been already granted. Or some such fecal legalese of bovine origins. On DOMA, Section 3 will be struck down as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Again, nothing radical, since it has been struck down on those grounds by eight federal courts already, and it only relates to marriage at the federal level. In other words, DOMA being partially struck down would be slightly more impactful than the DADT repeal.

So back to the Christianists. Assuming that my predictions hold (and they always do, don't they?), we can expect conservatives to be claiming a rape of their religious liberties, after all, they are experts on what constitutes rape. In this case, disallowing the rape of lesbians and gays is a rape of their religious liberties because real Constitution, Bible.

Then there will be conservatives claiming that not all conservatives should be tarred with the same feathers, because real Jesus.

There will be the liberal Christianists who would be offering a tepid, semi-flaccid apology of Christian love and how real Christianity would be all-loving, and how everyone should be gay-married Et cetera.

There will be the real liberals gay marrying right in front of the Westboro Baptist Church.  

But here's where the Good Christians fall short. If they want to convince someone that they are for equality, that their version of Jesus would approve of it, why aren't they claiming that their religious liberty is being trampled by DOMA, or Prop 8? Where are the lawsuits alleging religious discrimination by these Christians?

That's when you know what Good Christians stand for. Self interests. All they care is that Christianity not be maligned. If they have to sacrifice some Bad Christians, so be it.  But stand up for what is right?  Nah, that's the job of the non-existent deity.

4 comments:

Dan Avery said...

You would appear to explain God's inaction and silence as non-existence. In my novel, The Electric Pentecost, I explained it by pointing out The Principle of Indeterminacy. Sort of ties God's hands and puts a ball gag in God's mouth that one. Unless God was into influencing the experiment, but then the outcome would be worthless. Would it not?

Dan Avery said...

I love the "House" quote and photo. He looks positively demonic.

Shripathi Kamath said...

"You would appear to explain God's inaction and silence as non-existence."

Yes, because absence of evidence is evidence of absence* That is the standard we employ to deduce non-existence in every walk of life. You are instructed as a driver to not enter a pedestrian crossing if there is a pedestrian in it. Well how do you know that there isn't a pedestrian in it? That's right, the absence of evidence. How do you know that you do not have small pox? Again, the absence of any evidence of small pox.

Why does that simple standard get set aside for the supposed middle eastern offspring of a spook and a virgin?


*It is not proof of absence, but then we do not function on proof.

rappoccio said...

Similarly, Dan, how do you decide that Thor is not real, and that you should not make every discernible effort to die with a sword in your hand to ensure your entrance into Valhalla?

Of course : absence of evidence that this is a sensible thing to believe in leads you to conclude that the thing itself is absent.

We just take it one god further than you ;).