By Grania
Much as one would like to think that the new cartoon up at Jesus & Mo is satire that is all made up, or at least exaggerates reality even just a little bit for comic effect; this kind of conversation is all too evident on social media everywhere, and you’ve probably seen several examples of it yourself.
I’ll be looking at the push-back to legalization of same-sex marriage in the next few days, but in the mean time enjoy. Share everywhere you see any whinging and whining.
A common reaction I have seen on several websites is liberal Christians proclaiming how great the SC ruling on SSM is because it is exactly in line with what Jesus’ teachings tell us. This is not, of course surprising or unexpected. But, as much as I wish all Christians were of this category, it makes my teeth ache. As Hitchens said,
Another fairly common reaction I have seen is accommodationist non-believer types saying things like, “Oh, and you anti SSM Christian’s? Your doing Christianity wrong. Jesus never said you had to be a bigot.” That annoys me even more. What horseshit.
You’re, dammit.
They probably would have spelled it “Your”. Or “Yor”.
Funny, I thought exactly that when I saw my mistake. Made me laugh. At myself.
I thought you were doing it on purpose because that’s how they would’ve spelt it.
I’m part way through writing something on this subject, and I came up with the same Hitchens quote you did. He had such a way of nailing the argument.
Hitchens was a true artist with words. When I went looking for that quote I came across a page someone had compiled of Hitchens quotes and I ended up spending 30 minutes there before I remembered what I was supposed to be doing.
The funny thing is, I have several files of interesting quotes that I have collected myself, spread across several computers, but I never think to go to one of them to find what I am looking for. I am sure I have that Hitchens quote, for example. It is often easier and faster to just use the internet.
Quite right. Wherever it can, religion tries to impose its rules on everybody.
Another thing is that we can see religious people on both sides of the issue. But only the opposing side is overwhelmingly – if not completely – religious.
It sad beyond belief, but what JC is saying is almost word for word the lament of Mike Huckabee.Boo Hoo Hoo… The other night on some news program, he had a list of all the business people that would lose their livelihoods because of gay marriage legality. You see a conscientious xtian just HAS to go out of business rather than sell flowers that are going to be part of a gay marriage, because to do otherwise would offend that xtian’s god. Same with caterers and venue owners, and on and on. And this man has enough followers to be considered a contender for the highest office in the USA? (rhetorical question.)
Here’s the thing. Let’s grant that some Christians consider homosexuality to be an abomination that the Bible forbids. How is selling flowers to a gay person a sin or problematic from a religious perspective? Wouldn’t the gay person have all the explaining to do at the pearly gates?
It makes them an accessory to the crime, and therefore equally guilty. Like, y’know, conspiracy to commit gayness.
cr
It makes them an accessory to the crime. Like, y’know, conspiracy to commit gayness.
cr
Every time I hear these people going on about how they’re going to be labelled bigots for their beliefs and how unfair it is, I remember inter-racial marriage. When SCOTUS made that legal, there were still 16 states where it was illegal and Good Christians were crying the same lament. Yes, you are bigots, and that’s your choice (determinism aside). Being gay is just another excuse for you to pass judgement on your fellow human beings. One day most of you will get over it (or conveniently die off), but I’ve no doubt you’ll find something else to focus your ignorance on.
Did Huckabee explain how the xtian florists etc avoided going out of business when they weren’t selling flowers for the same-sex weddings that weren’t happening through the many decades in the past when such marriages were not possible?
Having not heard directly what Huckabee said, I wondered the same thing. It occurred to me that he might mean that bigots will lose business from equality-supporting heterosexual couples when the bigots are forced to be open about their bigotry.
So when are they going to stop selling cakes to gluttons and flowers to liars?
A recent posting on CNN is relevant: Girl scouts reject $100K donation.
In this story, the scouts rejected a large donation b/c it stipulated no support for transgendered scouts.
Good on you Girl Scouts.
Ever since my daughter was involved with Girl Scouts when she was younger, I’ve been very impressed with their openness and inclusivity. They don’t discriminate against LGBT girls, nor do they have any problems with whatever religious leanings girls have. In one of the handbooks with the oath, there was even a footnote saying the girls could substitute ‘God’ with whatever word they felt best represented their spiritual views. Actually, checking on Wikipedia, they made that official policy over 20 years ago, voted on by an overwhelming majority. I really liked Boy Scouts when I was in it as a kid, but they could learn a thing or two from the Girl Scouts.
(If anyone’s interested, I wrote a bit about this on my own blog, Evil Girl Scouts)
Thank you. This is encouraging.
I was impressed with the GS when my daughter participated too, Jeff. At the same time the Boy Scouts were kicking out gays and atheists the Girl Scouts were saying they were all welcome.
This is of course standard practice for xtians. As has been noted here before, when xtians left Britain to colonise America and said that they were “fleeing persecution”, what they meant is that they were “fleeing from not being allowed to persecute people they disagreed with”.
Exactly! The Puritans wanted to force their strict beliefs on the rest of English society, and left to find a place where they could do that.
I do hae one bit of sympathy, however. People who don’t wish to play along, caterers etc, are being forced to by lawsuits. Sometimes it’s plainly evident that the business was chosen specifically to force the issue. To me, that smacks of extreme visciousness.
NO ONE needs to buy a cake from a particular vendor, or have a specific photographer. People are free to NOT do business with a business, perhaps because of their positions on social issues, why should it not work the other way.
Yes I’ll here about ‘anti discrimination law’ and ‘they’re a business’, but that does not change the seeming mean spiritedness of the action. Just because the law is ‘on your side’ doesn’t make it reasonable.
I’m sure lots of folks here won’t agree. But these actions just make our cause ugly,
Feeling sorry for people who want to discriminate is an odd way to look at the issue. If you were in the real estate business and did not care for African Americans should you be allowed to refuse to sell a house to them. Maybe you want to keep them out of your kid’s school. Who is the mean spirited one? You call it not wanting to play along?
Well, I don’t support such frivolous law suits under any circumstances, and I’d agree that such incidents are not nice but no, I am not too worried about it making “our cause ugly.”
It doesn’t make it look ugly to me. I don’t care if it makes it look ugly to the people who are doing the discriminating because they already think that anyway and their reasons for doing so are not valid. In the case of others, the people on the fence and so on, well if they decide to support bigotry based on a few law suits like this they are merely identifying themselves as part of the problem.
I also am not too worried about business owners who are inclined to discriminate against people based on things like sexual orientation having to put up with some unkindness from others because of their penchant for discrimination. As my father used to say, “My heart pumps purple panther piss for them.”
“[extreme] visciousness [sic!]”?
I’m not so familiar with the US litigation system. But it seems to me it is based on laws, with common lawsuits (instead of much of the state taking action) as a normal means of balance. It behooves the US citizens to enforce the laws, does it not? It would be a citizen duty.
But ultimately the basis is the specific laws, not the lawsuits.
jay, if these so-called “Christian” businesses actually followed the teachings of their bible, they should read Romans 13:1-7 where they are commanded to obey their government and follow the laws, pay taxes, etc. They don’t get to ‘opt out’ because of deeply held religious beliefs.
If they don’t want to follow the anti-discrimination laws of their state (“State’s rights!”), then they deserve to suffer the punishment for breaking the law — again, that is against the teachings of their faith.
Agreed on every point–nevertheless, they will still invoke Acts 5.29 as their excuse to
do whatever the hell they want to dofollow “God’s law” instead of man’s law. Of course, as EvolvedDutchie told us here, “Divine law is just human opinion cloaked in religion.” And this reminds me very much of Susan B. Anthony’s statement: “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.”How else do you get the message across that discrimination is not ok unless you follow through with legal consequences? Like it or not, there are legal consequences for treating other people badly and if no one follows through the consequence loses its deterrent power.
If the anti-gay Christians were RIGHT, then they wouldn’t be bigots, would they? They’d simply be saying the simple truth.
That’s what’s hurting. When people follow a religion in power they seem to forget that they’re not really standing on firm ground. Their beliefs have no real force — not in reality, and certainly not in a diverse society which values objectively demonstrable empirical truths.
Instead their special “facts” are knocked over into a special status called “faith.” And when push comes to shove that status is actually a lower one.
Faith beliefs are only elevated within the context of A religion. Not all religions, not all philosophies, not for all people. Outsiders get to ignore so-called sacred Truths. In a Constitutional democracy, all those impressive religion-drenched certainties about what God wants, what Nature intends, or how marriage is grounded in grace are unceremoniously dumped into the area called Personal Opinion. They’re not really sacred. They don’t make the legal cut.
And Personal Opinion doesn’t grant the believer immunity from all personal accountability because awwww … look … you’re only following your faith. Society has to clap approval!
No it doesn’t. Nobody cares.
Push HAS come to shove. Reality bites, doesn’t it? Deal with it. Pick a better faith: it’s all a crap shoot anyway. Don’t forget that.
I come at this from another angle. Pretty recently, a friend and I were hanging out and I suggested we go to Chick-fil-a for lunch. My friend objected because CFA is a super Christian homophobic organization. I really wanted to rejoin “Well, if you look hard enough, there’s probably some aspect of every capitalist institution that supports something someone finds objectionable” but I kept it to myself.
The same argument can apply to conservative Christians. There are many more sinful “lifestyles” that they support beyond gay marriage just by doing business with the average American. The entire argument is absurd on its face, unless they want to upend the entire capitalist framework.
Capitalism itself isn’t bad, just the way some people do it. If I know something about a business that I don’t like, I won’t use it unless I don’t have a choice. If I get the chance, I tell them why too.
I used to run a complaints management department, and most managers wanted to know about complaints because they wanted to improve their services. The trouble is they’re usually separated from the areas where problems occur. Good managers actually appreciate it when you bring them a problem, as long as you do it in a reasonable way, and they will go out of their way to resolve the problem.
Then you get people who think that treating some of their fellow citizens less well is OK because their f**king imaginary friend told them so. I say it again – yes, you are a bigot. Religion is just your excuse.
Oh. My. Galaxy. What a completely magnificent way of expressing this. Consider it stolen!
I’m sure I’m not the first one to have come up with it, so I doubt I have a claim on it anyway. 🙂
Chick-fil-a should be boycotted.
Besides their unsavory prejudices, their prices are out of line. Their fast food chicken is pretty good for fast food chicken, but it ain’t that good. That’s why I avoided them long before their Christian Love was spotlighted.
Over the weekend, we went to some friends’ house, and one of them was delayed on his way back from the grocery store. The cashier had apparently decided to air his opinions on this horrible Supreme Court ruling. Boy did he pick the wrong person. My friend, apart from being a decent human being, also happens to have a daughter who recently got married in D.C. because she couldn’t come back home to Texas for the marriage due to this state’s same sex marriage ban. He’s a pretty polite, level-headed guy so I’m sure he didn’t get confrontational, but he spent a good 20 minutes discussing things with the cashier.
The cashier was only a teenager, so he was probably just echoing views he’s heard at home. But you’d think even by that age he’d have the tact to keep his mouth shut about issues like that when on the job. Was he really just expecting agreement from everyone in town? (Not that he’d be completely out of line in expecting that agreement – this is a very conservative town.)
Hopefully your friend at least made him examine his assumptions a bit.
I recently had this conversation with a brother-in-law who is opposed to SSM. I was quite shocked, because he has gay friends and I’ve never seen any bigotry from him and he’s Christian but not religious. My sister kept her mouth firmly shut, but I could tell by the looks she agreed with me completely. He agreed with the points I made. Basically, because of the kind of person he is, no one had ever challenged him before (he’s a bit scary). I have no reason to fear him, so I did. That was all it took.
Your poor sister!
My comment from the J&M site:
“As I see it, the problem of same sex marriage comes from the conflation of two quite separate issues: (1) whether same sex relationship/sexual activity is acceptable; and (2) whether, when the state gets into the business of regulating relationships, by regulating marriage and providing benefits (tax, inheritance, etc.) benefits for those who fall within that regulation.
(1) is clearly the tricky one – the Bible condemns it as immoral, and so many Christians do, Islam condemns it and so many Muslims do, etc.: there are a lot of religious objections, not to same sex marriage as such but to same sex relationship/sexual activity. Yet it seems to be that, in the human population, about 10% have a same sex sexual preference; same sex sexual relationships/sexual activity have been widely practiced and recognized in various cultures, more commonly among men – but that may be an artefact of history: we all know the origin of the word “lesbian”; and indeed same sex sexual activity has been observed in a number of animal species. If you think that same sex activity is wrong for religious reasons, yes, your documents support you, but anthropology and zoology suggest that it’s a condemnation of a fundamental characteristic of the animal kingdom; if you think it’s wrong for some unspecified “moral reason”, I’m not sure where you’re coming from.
(2) on the other hand seems to me simple – if the state is in the business of regulating relationships by regulating marriage, that regulation must be even-handed and cannot take account of religion. It’s possible that children may do better with parents of different sexes rather than two parents of the same sex, but as I understand it children raised in two same sex parent households do just fine, and the “studies” purporting to show otherwise have been proven to be biased rubbish; the state does not prevent couples who cannot or chose not to have children from marrying. It’s a question of fundamental fairness.”
As to not selling wedding cakes to gay couples (or houses to African-Americans), I refer you to point (2): the fact that you don’t like gay couples (or African-American neighbors) doesn’t require the state to permit you to discriminate, in fact the state is pretty much compelled to prevent you discriminating.
There’s also the conflation of the religious (God blesses this couple) marriage with the civil (you get to file as “married” on your tax return) marriage.
In Japan, as an example, marriage is civil – the only way you can be married is by registering the marriage at the appropriate municipal office, sign the register and it’s done. Any religious ceremony is of no legal effect.
In France, more or less the same, though there is a civil marriage ceremony – after which (but not before which – since you have to produce your civil marriage certificate) you may have a religious ceremony.
The US, and – to be fair – a lot of other countries, have a sort of mixed system: the license to marry comes from the state and comes first, but the marriage may be civil or religious. In California, for example, almost anyone may be permitted to be an officiant to perform the ceremony, but judges and county clerks and ministers of religion have an automatic right to perform marriage ceremonies.
And I think this entanglement is one of the factors that have put such pressure on the issue. If marriage were as in Japan or France, for example, the test would be the propriety of the state legitimizing opposite sex marriage but preventing same sex marriage – discriminating against same sex couples (which is in fact the test the Supremes used); here there has been a focus on the adverse effect on people who oppose it (even though it’s amply clear that ministers of religion have no civic duty to act as officiants for anyone).
[An aside: Japan does not permit same sex marriage, though I think there would be little religious objection to it; France has had same sex marriage since 2013 by statute, the Constitutional Council having decided that the previous opposite-sex-only law was constitutional, it took legislative action to permit same sex marriage.]
And one last point and a minor alteration to my post above:
“The US, and – to be fair – a lot of other countries, have a sort of mixed system: the license to marry comes from the state and comes first, but the marriage ceremony (which is required) may be civil or religious.
I think it would be even easier if all that were needed was to sign the register at the municipal office, as in Japan.
I’m sure there will be many SSM done in various churches as well. Now that it is the law in all 50 states you may be surprised. Not in Catholic churches and some others but many.
True, but…
I’ll bet you the proverbial dollar to the equally proverbial doughnut that precisely *none* of those weddings will be performed in an evangelical or fundamentalist church.
You would be right but the important parts of all of this is – The same sex marriages will now be happening in all 50, along with all the benefits of marriage that they did not get before, such as insurance, medical and all other benefits. The religious still get their freedom just like before. They can go to church everyday if they want and pray like hell. But they don’t get to use their religion to wreck other people’s lives.
Which is going to piss some of them off terribly.
The rainbow lights on the White House were pretty cool. And of course, the haters like Tim O’Reilly are offended.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/27/the-white-house-turned-into-a-rainbow-friday-night-video/
That’s really nice and a colorful victory too. Every republican has another twist in their shorts. They will just have to get over it and go back to being miserable.
How many politicians does it take to change a light bulb?
Not sure, but I do know the answer to a closely related question: “How many Republican politicians does it take to change a light bulb?”
None; they prefer the dark.
Thank you for posting J&M on WEIT. I really appreciate the support and I’m delighted that people here enjoy it.
Can I ask that you remove the “censor-busting” link from this post, please? It is supposed to be for readers in countries where J&M is blocked (eg Saudi, Iran, Pakistan, UAE) – and it will only work for as long as the censors in those countries are unaware of its existence, so I’m trying to keep it low-profile and exclusive.
Thanks!
Hello,
Jerry is on the road and wanted me to pass this on.
Thanks for removing it so quickly. No need to apologize. I’m probably being overly paranoid anyway.
I seriously doubt that someone who writes such a wonderful cartoon could ever be overly paranoid…