Ultimately, I don’t think I’d be suited toward the strictures of marriage. I’ve advocated in my own little ways for marriage equality, but I think that the level of marriage requires an equal amount of romance and a sense of attraction with which I can’t keep up.
Always interesting when right-wing political types claim to experience persecution and intolerance from the powers that be (or activists) for their conservatism. Liberals hardly claim such for their liberalism. Socialists hardly claim such for their socialism. But conservatives claim such for their conservatism. Why?
For anyone who’s interested: there is MORE than just a presidential election this year. 35 seats in the Senate and all 435 seats in the House are up for grabs in 2016.
Think of this as a bigger version of the midterms. Everything’s at stake. If you or your party mess this up, you mess everything up.
Argument by pro-CSA flag person: “we did not agree with big business and government intervening with our daily lives. We wanted to live for family, our faith, and a simpler way of life. ”
Because *of course* it would be better to live under a stratified aristocracy in which the majority of people of European (read: British) descent lived in severe rural poverty, a few owned most property, and economic mobility was slow like molasses. But hey, at least they weren’t black like those slaves and trouble-making freed Negroes over there, so we’re alright, Jack!
Really, I would LOL at this sympathy for the “simpler way of life” of the South if the sympathy weren’t so… you know… sad.
Reading this post by Winnifred Sullivan on the Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College decisions, I got the gist of her argument: that we, no matter our political persuasion, have extended the legal “religious freedom” idea to its logical point of absurdity.
But something caught my eye in this paragraph:
But when the church and the state went their separate ways—when the church was disestablished—the intimate articulation of political, legal, and religious fictions lost their logic on a national scale. They no longer recognize one another. The legal and religious fictions of religious freedom have become lies designed to extend the life of the impossible idea that church and state can still work together after disestablishment. There is no neutral place from which to distinguish the religious from the non-religious. There is no shared understanding of what religion, big “R” religion, is. Let’s stop talking about big “R” religion.
This perhaps best articulates the disconnect between religion and the state in which organized religion – and the various means of power which it can assume – is much more free to run amuck over the rights of individual human beings.
I think that, rather than being content with this current separation of religion and state, in which the two “agree” to separate from each other (which has stopped applying in many places), something should stand in the gap between the two. Some sort of fiction – not just an institution, but an entire legal fiction – should act as a buffer between religion and the secular state, in such a way that the state would be able to eliminate any reference to the words “religion” or “faith” from documented law and jurisprudence.
In fact, for any institution or fiction which considers itself secular or nonsectarian (such as education), something should stand in the gap between religion and such-and-such nonsectarian institution.
But what could be strong enough, conducive enough to hold together that wall of separation?
Can the interfaith/intervalues coalitions – those organizations which classify themselves specifically as explicitly welcoming of multiple religions – be part of that wall?