Yes, you heard me right. (And for those who are offended, I apologize. But might I suggest that maybe you’re in the wrong place if my outburst bothers you.)
I just cannot help myself tonight, I am so hoppin mad I can hardly contain myself. And it’s just not enough to scream it at my poor husband. I need to scream it to the world: I loathe George W. Bush with every fiber of my being.
This sorry little man spent his afternoon “praying” with the Mrs. James Dobson today. And after his little session of prayer, he comes out all bolstered with, God only knows what, but it certainly wasn’t God’s grace, and proclaims he is going to veto the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1592, which passed in the House today by a vote of 237-180.
Yes, that’s right, he is going VETO a bill that would include gays and lesbians in with other minorities that are targets of violent hate crimes.
Is THIS what our so-called “Christian” president spent his afternoon praying about --- whether my son deserves the same kinds of protections the Dobsons, Robertsons, and Falwells get?
WELL GEORGE W. BUSH CAN GO STRAIGHT TO HELL!
And to those 180 Representatives who voted NO, maybe you could explain to Mathew Sheppard’s mom why you don’t think gays and lesbians are targets of violent hate crimes.
And as always, I can count on Andrew not to melt down into a whimpering, seething mess. Here is his much cooler, calmer perspective on this:
There are, I think, two coherent positions on hate crime laws.The first is opposition to the entire concept, its chilling effect on free speech, its undermining of the notion of equality under the law, and so on. That's my position. I oppose all hate crimes laws, regardless of the categories of individuals they purport to protect. The other coherent position is the view that hate crimes somehow impact the community more than just regular crimes and that the victims of such crimes therefore deserve some sort of extra protection under the law. The criteria for inclusion in such laws is any common prejudice against a recognizable and despised minority. The minority need not be defined by an involuntary characteristic - religious minorities are so protected - and they choose their faith. Nor need the minority be accurately idetified. If a gentile is bashed because the attacker thinks he's Jewish, the hate crime logic still applies. I disagree with this, but I can accept its coherence.
But the one truly incoherent position is that hate crimes laws are fine for all targeted groups except gays. Gays are among the most common victims of hate crimes, and straight people are also targeted for being gay even when they're not. If you're going to buy the whole concept of hate crimes, it makes no sense to exclude gays - none. Notice we need no discussion of the morality or otherwise of homosexuality. All that is being punished is the perception of someone else's identity...
[...]
The federalist argument equally applies. If it is the position of the feds that this should be left entirely to the states, fine. But to say that the feds have a role in matters of race and religion, but not sexual orientation again makes no logical sense, unless the federal government wants to send a strong message about the moral and human and political inferiority of gay people.
Perhaps making these logical arguments is futile. The reason for this veto is quite simple. Christianists simply regard homosexuality as an evil and a sickness. Any law that implies that being gay is an identity and deserves equal respect and protection as other identities is anathema to them. Implicit in their worldview - and absolutely implicit in the position of the president - is that it's okay to attack gays in a way that it's not okay to attack, say, Jews or blacks. This is the core position of the Christianists - which is why I refuse to call them Christians. Bush, we now know, is a captive of this bigotry and an enabler of it. Whatever your general views of hate crime laws, this argument holds. And this president should be ashamed.
12 comments:
wow! to wish someone goes to Hell, either means you have absolutely no concept of Hell, or you are no different than ...who?
When was the last time you submitted to God's will and not your own? That answer may help you.
You remain in my prayers.
Colossians 2:8 - See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
As David Kupelian said in his "Marketing of Evil" book:
You might wonder: Where and when will this "gay rights" public relations steamroller stop? The end game is not only to bring about the complete acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, but also to prohibit and even criminalize public criticism of homosexuality, including the quotation of biblical passages disapproving of homosexuality.
In other words, total jamming of criticism with the force of law. This is already essentially the case in Canada and parts of Scandinavia. "Why?" you might ask. "I thought gays just wanted equal rights and to be free to do what they want in their own bedrooms." No, they've had that for years.
Their campaign will not end until Christians and other traditionalists opposing homosexuality are shut up, discredited, and utterly silenced – and all because of a little factor we've forgotten about in our cleverness, namely this: In truth, there is something wrong with homosexuality.
Simply put, it is unnatural and self-destructive – just as Western civilization has long understood it.
Mark ... I sincerely hope one day you can understand what's wrong with your way of thinking. There's NOTHING wrong with homosexuality at all. If it scares that two guys can love each other, that's fine, you have a right under our government to get creeped out by something that has nothing to do with you and affects you in absolutely no way. But stop trying to act superior just because you THINK God agrees with everything you believe. Oh and, that David Kupelian fellow seems full of it.
""I thought gays just wanted equal rights and to be free to do what they want in their own bedrooms." No, they've had that for years."
That's actually wrong, there are still anti-sodomy laws in some states. And they DON'T have equal rights, that's what the fuss with marriage is all about. On a federal level, they really have nothing. It's up to the benevolence of their particular state or employer to decide if the person they love and have dedicated themselves to is treated like the spouse they are or not.
I love the last little part of your quote: "Simply put, it is unnatural and self-destructive – just as Western civilization has long understood it." It's wrong on so many levels. We just had a discussion about this in my religion class (well, it wasn't a discussion so much as a Homosexuals-Are-Evil rant - the teacher wouldn't call on me when I raised my hand [read: for ALL of the forty five minutes] and whenever I did talk, he spoke over me). Homosexuality is actually a very natural thing. Seriously. It is evident in a LOT of species all around the world. My religion teacher tried to explain it away by saying it was a dominance issue. That doesn't explain the three pairs of penguins at Bremerhaven Zoo that STILL wouldn't mate with females, even though some were imported specially for that (and from Sweden no less - aren't Swedish chicks supposed to be hot?). Anyway, I need to get to bed, have an AP exam in the morning :(
BTW, I echo your sentiments about the shrub completely.
Actually, Alicia, you're wrong about the anti-sodomy laws. The Supreme Court declared all such laws unconstitutional last year, effectively striking them down in every state.
Ah ... must have missed that one, this was senior year after all xD I would have been right if this had been written a year ago at least, lol. I take that part back then ^^ (but I refuse to give anything else!)
Alicia,
There's NOTHING wrong with homosexuality at all.
Define "wrong" and your source for 'right' and 'wrong'?
Homosexuality is actually a very natural thing.
Define "natural"? btw I do think 'sin' comes 'natural'.
btw, Thanks jarred!
I define wrong as something that hurts the individual and/or people around said individual. Homosexuality doesn't do that. Being narrow-minded however does hurt people, both the individual struggling with their sexuality and the narrow-minded person. Why do I need a 'source'? It may be God or whatever great being it is that created everything. Mark, go check out natural in a dictionary. It's kinda silly that you're asking me. Sin, by definition, is harmful. I haven't seen anything that says homosexuality is. Only close-mindedness seems to be harmful.
Oh, I agree with everything else you said, too. I just figured I'd point out that one detail. ;)
As for Mark, I'd suggest that you not spend a lot of time and energy arguing with him. He's an old-time heckler here at Seething Mom's blog. You're about as likely to convince him of your point of view as you are the wall. Maybe less likely. ;)
No reason to thank me, Mark. I made the correction in the sake of accuracy, not because I happen to agree with your vitriol.
Sin, by definition, is harmful.
Actually, sin by defintion is anything that sperates us from God.
I haven't seen anything that says homosexuality is
That's interesting. Open your eyes dear.
"Actually, sin by defintion is anything that sperates us from God."
What an interesting little statement that is!
Mark, your attitude -- reeking as it does with revulsion and seething with spleen -- will do more to separate people from God's love than anything else you can name.
Pot, meet Kettle.
And when was the last time you submitted yourself to God's will? I suggest you keep your prayers for yourself, son. You're gonna need them.
Post a Comment