![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jul. 19th, 2006
A post is going around the 'net, even to the point of making it to theAmerican Legion website, about there being a symbolic reason for each of the 13 folds done in folding up a U.S. flag in the military style. Its all garbage, totally made up, and Ed Darrell takes it apart quite nicely...
Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub - Fisking a Flag-Fold Flogging:
Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub - Fisking a Flag-Fold Flogging:
Bad history travels fast and far. Let’s see if we can steer people in a better direction with real facts.
As an FYI: Senator George Allen voted against the bill in the first place. This is hardly surprising considering his entire campaign support this year seems to be from the religious right. For all the issues that the Democrats and Libertarians were rallying for at their booths at the beer fest last month, the Republican booth promoting Allen and Wolf were pushing one thing only: "one man one woman". That's it.
That's right - the entire focus of the Republican party in Virginia is to create institutionalized discrimination at every level possible. Nothing else matters to them except to express as loudly as they possibly can how much they hate gay people.
Wolf also voted No.
Loudoun has already said NO to not one, but TWO right-wing nutballs in the last two elections - wanna go for two more this year?
Davis voted yes. Bartlett was the only congressman, either house, from MD who voted no. anybody surprised? didn't think so.
Warner voted for the bill, btw, so he's on a reprieve from my ranting for now...
My namesake in the Senate from Alabama voted No, but he's an imbecile for the right, always has been, and I'm not surprised in the slightest...
That's right - the entire focus of the Republican party in Virginia is to create institutionalized discrimination at every level possible. Nothing else matters to them except to express as loudly as they possibly can how much they hate gay people.
Wolf also voted No.
Loudoun has already said NO to not one, but TWO right-wing nutballs in the last two elections - wanna go for two more this year?
Davis voted yes. Bartlett was the only congressman, either house, from MD who voted no. anybody surprised? didn't think so.
Warner voted for the bill, btw, so he's on a reprieve from my ranting for now...
My namesake in the Senate from Alabama voted No, but he's an imbecile for the right, always has been, and I'm not surprised in the slightest...
on yesterday's Gay Marriage amendment vote:
I'm still trying to figure out where this "purpose" attitude comes from (which also drives their anti-evolution rhetoric - creation without God as they see evolution means creation without "purpose" or "direction" is a common argument of theirs). 36 years as an Episcopalian and I'd never heard of it 'til this shit made it to the public square. For all their Biblical literalism, they simply aren't aware that the Bible itself NEVER uses purpose to describe the creation of Man as a whole, or even creation as a whole, aside from some easily misinterpreted references in Paul. God personally never said it except a direct reference to Pharough in Exodus 9, and Jesus did not at any point use the term "purpose" in any of the Gospels. The core "purpose" argument that directly is a reference to man is in Revelation, when he describes the purpose of the sinners to the Beast, whatever that is (and as I've said before, I reject Revelation and all of the hatred it has spawned). Paul's use of "purpose" throughout the epistles is his own in sharing his interpretation of God, not God's.
In other words, this "purpose" never existed. It was a dogmatic creation of MAN's, likely from the Catholics initially, long-since discarded as unnecessary. For all the "fundementals" of the so-called Biblical literalists out there, this purpose argument of theirs isn't Biblically defensable.
Rep. John Carter (R-TX): "The reality is, marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. Now in China, they might say a civil union. In Rome they might say a church union. But it's always been a union between a man and a woman. In my faith, I believe it's part of God's plan for the future of mankind."Translation: separation of church and state is absolutely an unknown to these idiots, and their faith alone decided their vote, not their constituents or any adherance to reason or even the REAL history of this country. They really have no idea that their very words spit venom on every ideal the Constitution is meant to endow and protect.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): "I believe first, though, marriage should be protected because it wasn't our idea. Several millennia ago, the words were written that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two should become one flesh. It wasn't our idea. It was God's idea."
Rep. Bob Beauprez (R-CO): "We celebrate the fact that we were all created equal by our Creator -- equal, but different, and for a purpose. He showed us that purpose in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve ... And marriage since the beginning of time, as close as I can tell, has been between a man and a woman. And if it was indeed good enough for our Creator and it was indeed our Creator's plan that we were created different for an absolute divine purpose, I think we best not be messing with His plan today. "
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA): "This is all about marriage that results, or potentially can result, in the procreation of children. And this is what our Constitution has implied for 223 years, and indeed, what the word of God has implied for 2,000 years ... But I do know a little bit about the sacrament of marriage, Mr. Speaker, as one of about 200 Catholic members of the United States Congress. And I think God has spoken very clearly, very clearly, on this issue."
I'm still trying to figure out where this "purpose" attitude comes from (which also drives their anti-evolution rhetoric - creation without God as they see evolution means creation without "purpose" or "direction" is a common argument of theirs). 36 years as an Episcopalian and I'd never heard of it 'til this shit made it to the public square. For all their Biblical literalism, they simply aren't aware that the Bible itself NEVER uses purpose to describe the creation of Man as a whole, or even creation as a whole, aside from some easily misinterpreted references in Paul. God personally never said it except a direct reference to Pharough in Exodus 9, and Jesus did not at any point use the term "purpose" in any of the Gospels. The core "purpose" argument that directly is a reference to man is in Revelation, when he describes the purpose of the sinners to the Beast, whatever that is (and as I've said before, I reject Revelation and all of the hatred it has spawned). Paul's use of "purpose" throughout the epistles is his own in sharing his interpretation of God, not God's.
In other words, this "purpose" never existed. It was a dogmatic creation of MAN's, likely from the Catholics initially, long-since discarded as unnecessary. For all the "fundementals" of the so-called Biblical literalists out there, this purpose argument of theirs isn't Biblically defensable.
there's a reason for it?
Jul. 19th, 2006 11:21 pmThe Revealer: The Facts According to Fundamentalism:
[...]for many Christian conservatives, there are no "inherently religious" activities, since they don't consider their beliefs "religious" -- a term associated with stuffy mainline Protestants and Catholicism -- but simply "the truth." The fundamentalist approach to faith is much like a civil engineer's approach to bridge-building: there are certain irrefutable facts to be taken into account, but of the laws of physics and God are followed, success is certain. So, for instance, a fundamentalist would see nothing "inherently religious" in counseling a drug addict to accept Jesus; the fundamentalist would consider the conquest of addiction impossible without Christ's help in rejecting sin.
I'm reminded of a formulation for governance conceived of by John MacKay, a mid-century dean of conservative protestantism cited by rightwing lawmakers for years. There are only three kinds of government, MacKay advised: secular, a modern invention which is based on denying the facts of God; demoniac, which is based on lying about the facts of God; and covenantal, which is based on harmonizing the law of the land with the laws of nature -- that is, God's.
Fundamentalists aren't interested in a place at the secular table. If the press wants to respect fundamentalist activists -- and accurately report on the challenge they raise to separation of church and state -- they need to accept that and look past the worldly proofs of efficacy -- or the lack thereof -- that mean little to true believers bent on "restoring" America to what they believe are its covenantal origins.