So more free time to waste as it is far far to warm to go outside, hence I shall hide inside. While doing this I became bored and decided to follow up on the presidential race in America that I have been following. [I know, I said I was bored….how could this possible help???.....well that’s just how very bored I was!]
Anyway, annoyed at general American society at the moment and there religious ways. I was not aware of how incredibly religious America is. I though that, yes indeed it was and there is a strong following over there, but I had know idea it was as extreme as to have such a large effect on their government and schooling system.
For this reason I hope that the Democrats get in. As they seem to be slightly more in line with the idea of the separation of church and state. I think that we should all support any disestablishmentarian movement. It would seem that most of the Republican candidates want to appoint religiously bias Judges to their supreme court.
This would result in two things that I personally find appalling. This could result in the criminalisation of gay acts, which was only decriminalised in about 2003 in the USA. Not that I overly support gays or am entirely happy about some issue surrounding the matter, this is another topic altogether, but to sanction and/or imprison someone for it is outrageous to say the least. To lock someone away and deny them there personal freedoms based on their sexual orientation is absurd.
The next would be the overturning of a president that had been set which prevented the states from banning abortion. This means that any woman seeking her right to the option of an abortion would be deny and criminal prosecuted. Once again this entire topic could take up many more pages worth of debating and I may post something on it later. But I mean really do they think that it would actually stop abortions happening? Are people that ignorant? The most likely things that would occur from this is that thousands of lives would be destroyed, i.e. the mother that couldn’t care for the child, the abandoned child, the abused child. That’s for those who are born. The others cases will lead to “backyard abortions”, home “remedies” that will result in births that have none of the correct medical oversight, which is obviously very dangerous.
Another bill that was to be put forward for enactment was one that would effectively allow two things. First involves the way churches that receive and allocates money from the government. Many religious groups set up AA meetings or help the homeless or people receive counselling or psychological help through various programs subsidised by the government. At the moment the church and state funds must be kept completely separate and accounted for. This bill will change that, allowing the mingling of funds so that the money could get mixed up and “lost” along the way.
Secondly the hiring and firing in this area by the group committees based on religious belief. That is to say I can fire you because you’re a Muslim and hire you as a counsellor because you’re a Christian, no qualifications retired. So straight out the window with the whole freedom of religion thing there.
The last thing for this little rant: Not teaching evolution in school??? What the hell??? Intelligent design??? What an absolute load of crap! I can’t believe that some people actually believe this work of fiction. Ok, will write something on this later, just needed to state it……grrrrrrr…..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
yeah...it's scary, and it's stupid, and it's the exact opposite of what any rational person could stand for. I don't think there's any real debate over homosexuality, it's their call and it's not like they have the choice anyway, and as for gay marriage, the only actual argument against it is that 'marriage' is defined as between a man and a woman, isn't it? But words have been changed before, and it would make things a lot easier and more pleasant for a lot of people, and few people who aren't being bias due to a pathetic religious standpoint would judge it to be a bad thing...it's scary that we live in a world where the most powerful country, instead of leaning towards ideals that are actually worth havins, risks collapsing into the unquestionably dark moralities of a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself every other page, and that is only any more powerful than any other religion that completely lacks religion in that its advocates won a few more wars to spread it...that to me is scary.
as for abortion, i'm back and forth on the subject, i can see the arguments from both ends, although strictly a pro-choice kinda guy and i reckon that if i ever got called into it, i could argue well enough for it. i completely agree with you that it's open for debate and probably always will be, but anyone who comes in arguing against it solely because they interpret the bible in such a way that it plays against their pathetic sensitivities? perhaps those people should have been aborted...they're certainly not doing the world, or the gene pool, any favours. only those particular people though. no matter how 'good' they think they are, they are the cause of MUCH needless suffering.
aaaand i can't remember the rest of what you said, but yeah. scary scary stuff. in my next blog, i reckon i'm gonna write that thing i mentioned to you, the natural selection of science thing.
Nice quote would be:
"Abort born again christians"
No need to deal with them twice....
Hmm. Well I sort of skimmed your two posts, and interesting thoughts indeed. I shall add you to my links list. AKA my list of cool people ;)
Michael, why is it a pathetic religious standpoint to be against gay marriage?
Perhaps advocates both for and against gay marriage have their wires crossed.
Marriage is for many simply an institution of the state. (The extreme example is France, where marriages are ceremoniously carried out by town mayors, in town halls.) The state ought not advance any particular religious belief over any other (including the absence of religious belief). Therefore religious arguments, and moral arguments derived from religion, against gay marriage ought not convince the state to disallow gay marriages. There does not seem to be any non-religious reason why gays should not be allowed to be registered as 'married' by the state, to receive the same legal treatment and to conduct themselves in the same way as heterosexual married couples.
However, it is understandable that religious people forbid gays becoming married in a religious fashion in their Churches, if the religion in question forbids homosexuality. Marriage can be a religious institution, and it is after all their Church and their religion. It would not be logically coherent for such believers to allow such marriages. Not that logical coherence is big on their priorities, anyway. But if a priest refuses to marry a homosexual couple, you can't force him(/her!) to, and it would be an injustice if you did.
I'm very much in favour of there existing maximal personal liberty for individuals that is compatible with the same liberty for others (to borrow John Rawls' words). You can't enforce clear thinking, you can only promote it. Let people delude themselves if they wish, so long as they don't hurt anyone. And we can hope reason will out, eventually....
Post a Comment