christian oppression in usa = laughable

On Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at 03:21PM, t.whid <[email protected]> wrote:

>A rational argument can be made that it is the extreme christian right
>who are the oppressors by attempting to take away fundamental human
>rights. Two examples: working to ban gay marriage and working to ban
>abortion (both with the POTUS's help and approval).

Both measures have popular support IIRC. Why do you want to oppress the masses?

- Rob.

And there used to be popular support banning interracial marriage and
keeping black folks enslaved.

But, lucky for us, there's this little thing in the USA called the
constitution (not that the current government has any respect for it).

It's supposed to protect the rights of the minority from the will of
the majority.

Regardless, how is the majority being oppressed by letting two guys get
married or allowing a women to control her own body?

your arg has holes. big, wet holes.


On Mar 22, 2005, at 10:32 AM, Rob Myers wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at 03:21PM, t.whid <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A rational argument can be made that it is the extreme christian right
>> who are the oppressors by attempting to take away fundamental human
>> rights. Two examples: working to ban gay marriage and working to ban
>> abortion (both with the POTUS's help and approval).
>
> Both measures have popular support IIRC. Why do you want to oppress
> the masses?
>

===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

On Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at 04:09PM, t.whid <[email protected]> wrote:

>Regardless, how is the majority being oppressed by letting two guys get
>married or allowing a women to control her own body?

Their morality has been invalidated in the laws of a country that is supposed to represent them.

Which is the basis of your argument as well.

>your arg has holes. big, wet holes.

And your response has -er- no, this is a family list.

- Rob.

On Mar 22, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Rob Myers wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at 04:09PM, t.whid <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Regardless, how is the majority being oppressed by letting two guys
>> get
>> married or allowing a women to control her own body?
>
> Their morality has been invalidated in the laws of a country that is
> supposed to represent them.

But their supposed 'values' are creating real, live hardship to others.
They are oppressing them by attempting to deprive them of rights that
themselves enjoy.

The morality of bigots doesn't rate high on my radar of things that
need protecting anyway no matter how many of them there are.

>
> Which is the basis of your argument as well.

It isn't.

Two people not allowed to be married have much more than their morality
violated.. their property rights are violated, their privacy rights are
violated, their right to happiness is violated, their right to medical
care could be violated, etc.

Violating a person's right to make medical decisions regarding her own
body has obvious implications beyond the women's morality.

>
>> your arg has holes. big, wet holes.
>
> And your response has -er- no, this is a family list.

haha, is it? I just thought it sounded funny.

>
> - Rob.
>

===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

>It's supposed to protect the rights of the minority from the will of
>the majority.

this brings up an interesting distinction.

the laws really end up protecting the majority. but we fight to keep
them from enforcing just the opinions of that majority. so there's a
hazy gray area between personal views and REAL threats. we obviously
don't need a law against fanged, hairy monsters who hide under the
bed, but children are genuinely scared these things are going to get
them. fortunately, those children wield no real political clout.

the christian right really does feel personally threatened by things
like gays, abortion, anything unfamiliar (like other religions,
politics, race). they are terrified their souls are somehow in
jeopardy if they let these "sins" go on. it's a weird psychotic
justification for just giving free reign to nosiness. but when the
folks in positions of power are the same ones who believe in the
bogey men, you get the president signing off on the schiavo case,
and pretty much genocide in the middle east. he really thinks he's
saving us from impending doom.


that'd be great if everyone just relaxed a little and wasn't so
judgmental about others, but psychosis is more the norm than the
occasional deformity. there are huge cultural precedents to condone
malicious behavior if it is cloaked in the right cause. anyone can
read anything and get whatever message they secretly want to see.
manson blamed the beatles, and a large number of psychotics adopt
christianity.

but if someone is just plain evil, they can either observe their
behavior and be disgusted, or adopt christianity, hoping they will
feel better. some do, some don't. though those prone to paranoia
are also prone to believe in spirits and an omniscient judge. but
the reverse is hardly true. some are nice people and happen to also
adopt christianity.


usually, if a person can't solve what's troubling them inside (which
may just be bad genes, random release of the wrong neuro chemicals),
they often try to force fix their environment (externals,
particularly the people in it). they can neither construct a very
helpful criteria for the world, nor tolerate anything short of that
warped standard. And christianity justifies this. solves nothing,
but is a good reason why republicans yell so much.