Archive for book of Romans

Thoughts on Gay Marriage

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, history, humanity, life, politics, random, religion, sex taboos, thoughts, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on October 17, 2009 by chouck017894

Not too long ago in our alleged “everyone is equal” USA democracy, the courts of many states justified bans on interracial couples marrying while still claiming that “persons of color” and whites were treated equally.  Many even pointed to the Bible, the alleged “word of god,” as their authority for the practice of racially inspired prejudice—a book that nowhere ever condemned slavery as immoral.

In later form religious inspired hatred, having been legally thwarted in their racial discrimination, was turned to same sex attraction as the ultimate no-no in their hate-wrapped assessment of what is required for spiritual purity.  The nation was forced  to witness the true colors of religious ethics when the proposal was presented in the state of California for granting same-sex couples contracts of marriage.  With multimillions of dollars pumped into the state of California from the Utah-based Mormon church, the lies were spread that in allowing two persons of the same sex to openly commit themselves to each other in a legal contract would somehow jeopardized heterosexual marriages, and that such legal recognition would in some unstated manner encourage homosexuality!

The Utah-based Mormon elders bought off the California residents with those fraudulent assertions and Proposition 8, allowing same-sex marriage rights, was defeated.  The Mormon elders wallowed in their ego-gratifying rationale, and gallingly insisted that the measure ensured that men and women were treated equally—they just couldn’t openly and respectfully pledge devotion and dedication to someone of the same sex.  Again the radical religionists pointed to the Bible as their standard of pretended virtues.

Oddly, Jesus, who is portrayed as having meandered around the country with a group of males whom he had instructed to abandon their families to follow him, said absolutely nothing about same sex attraction.  During their male-only three-year travel indulgence, apparently none of them did a lick of work.  Even so, prejudicial judgment can still be fired up with concocted divine disapproval.  The favored verse in the book of Romans used to fan hatred of same sex attraction happened to have been written c.100 CE, and was part of a social comment that was inspired by the  declining population in Rome at that time.  Making a huge issue out of  same-sex attraction—which happens to occur all through nature—as soul-endangering begs the question that if it is such a horrendous threat to spiritual purity then why was it not a concern put forth in the Ten Commandments, for example? 

The fraudulent religious-inspired indignation of same-sex couples avowing loving commitment to one another as being reason for denial of legal commitment is nothing more than spiritual pretense.  If that is the rationale for opposing loving same-sex unions, shouldn’t we also question the Court’s decision that allows such persons as tax evaders, deadbeat parents, hardcore criminals, and even Death Row inmates the right to marry?  There was never a “Proposition” ever put forth for public approval or disapproval—or Mormon intrusion—as to whether or not those persons should be allowed to marry. 

Apparently jimmying prejudice into the California State Constitution through pressure of lies of out-of-state rightwing religionists—whose founder just happened to indulge himself with fifty-two serial “wives”—was not recognized by the California voting citizens as a glaring example of dysfunctional democracy.

  • See related post: Breeding for God, Sept. 25.
Advertisements

Sinning Against Democratic Principles

Posted in Atheist, belief, Christianity, culture, Government, history, humanity, Inspiration, naturalism, politics, random, religion, secularism, thoughts, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 27, 2009 by chouck017894

Genuine freedom for everyone, as the US Constitution proclaims, certainly is not being served by persons who seek to bring down the Founding Fathers’ ideals of governing, which wisely stressed separation of church and state.  Nor should the right of free speech be twisted into a perverse interpretation that it is a license to proselytize to captive audiences of school students as the overly vocal bloc of Christian radicals, such as the noble-sounding Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), have chosen to interpret it.  This Christian rightwing legal affiliation has trained more than nine hundred lawyers in the art of sidestepping tolerance and compassion for any who may live or believe differently than they.

 If the idea that religious fanatics can influence the US Supreme Court sounds impossible, think again.  Since 1995 the Supreme Court has been leaning more and more toward passing judgments that threaten to undermine the safeguard of separation of church and state as championed by our nations’ Founding Fathers.

It all began with the landmark case Rosenberger vs. the Regents of the University of Virginia.  The charge brought forth by the so-called Alliance Defense Fund was that secular clubs were funded through student activity fees, but the fees were not available to fund religious student groups.  This shameless jargon used by the ADF to cause the Supreme Court to deviate from the Establishment Clause* was due to the fact that the university could not by law appear to endorse any particular religion—thus the ADF howled “viewpoint discrimination”!  (*Establishment Clause: one of two “religion clauses” of the First Amendment.)

 Since the religious radicals got their foot through the door, the Catholic dominated Supreme Court has bowed to the mythology of those claiming to be “victimized Christians,” and the  court has continued to deviate from earlier and wiser precedence and has leaned toward the “reasoning” that if secular clubs were funded but not religious proselytizing groups, then discrimination was present!

The irony of the very ones who so actively and loudly promoted discrimination against diverse lifestyles standing up and claiming to be victims of discrimination would be amusing if it wasn’t such a dangerous act of hatred and psychic terrorism.  They hide behind the trumped up claim that they are “biblically compelled” to condemn various groups; homosexuals, for example.  They like to use the Bible as their permission from god to indulge themselves in orgiastic hatred and intolerance.  In regard to same-sex appeal, discrimination is stirred up by using a half sentence verse of Romans (1:27); “…And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

 First, let us note that, as it is stated, woman was regarded as nothing more than an outlet to be used for man’s sexual release.  The line in question was not a religious directive and not reallly spiritual condemnation so much as simply reflecting the social etiquette of Rome c.100 CE, the time of the book of Romans‘ composing, the authorship of which has never been satisfactorily determined.  In addition, endless translations of “holy word” have not insured accuracy of what the verse-twisters like to allege.

Diversity is highly respected in the energy-mechanism of Creation, for it is only through an unlimited spectrum of life expression that the Source is made absolute and omniscient.  To pretend otherwise, as radical religionists do, is true irreverence, for such hostile opposition to the natural diversity expressed in life in the guise of religious superiority is not reflected anywhere else in Nature or the universe.  That odious pretense of favoritism radiates chiefly around the endless parade of self-appointed mouthpieces of god.  They may build their earthly power structures and influence by fanning indulgence in bigotry, but it remains highly unlikely that the ladder to Heaven is outfitted with rungs of hatred.