Do you remember the YouTube debate question posed by a black, Southern pastor, asking why religion should be used to prevent same-sex marriage? I posted about it a few days ago, and it was one of the questions chosen for the debate. Benjamin Shapiro of WingNutDaily, though, sees the whole concept as some sort of political trick, and you won't believe why.
In summing up Edwards' response to the question of imposing religion on the issue of gay marriage, Shapiro says the following...
"Sen. Edwards first stated that based on his religious principles, he was
personally opposed to same-sex marriage. Then, he retreated from his principles:
"I think it is absolutely wrong, as president of the United States, for me to
have used that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights, and I
will not do that when I'm president of the United States."
Ben is right (and you have no idea how much it pains me to say that, lol), Edwards' response was one of the most uncommitted, spineless, safe, pointless...well, I could keep on going, but I think you get the point. It's Ben's next few statements that make my blood boil...
"Edwards was clearly mistaken in his appraisal of the role of religious
values in politics. Religion shapes morals; morals shape politics. The
Constitution forbids Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of
religion. It does not bar politicians or voters from consulting their moral
compasses in charting America's course on the big issues of our day."
Politicians can consult their moral compasses all they want, but they are NOT permitted to impose their religious values or mores on any of us...period. He continues talking about how "progressives" are forcing fundies to bear the burden of proof on issues pertaining to gay rights. He preaches about the ridiculousness of forcing "tradition" to change (funny how these self-righteous fundies almost always align themselves with tradition), but then says...
"This is not to say that tradition should always prevail. Sometimes change
will meet its burden of proof: anti-slavery advocates, anti-segregation
advocates and anti-sexism advocates made their cases strongly and forcefully,
overcoming the weak arguments for tradition."
Notice how he left out gay rights, lol, but before you get too excited...read what he says next...
"But constant social experimentation – perpetual change justified only by
empty assumptions about the infallibility of the New – discards experience in
favor of untested theory.
An immature society asks, "Why shouldn't we?" assuming the past is
antiquated. A mature society sees the proven value of the old and the possible
value of the new, asking, "Why should we?" Sometimes change should be
undertaken; sometimes not. This is only right: Some change is progress, while
some change is decay. We can only tell progress from decay by asking change to
make its case – to meet its burden of proof."
So, it would seem that Mr. Shapiro is trying to say that progressives (aka advocates of gay rights) are attempting to make our society accept the idea of gay marriage by tricking people into some sort of hypnotized state. Funny, isn't that what he and his fundie pals have been trying to do all along? What he calls "proven value" is relative...a fact he will probably go to his grave denying. Sorry Ben, but it sounds like you're describing yourself...not the so-called progressives.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment