“Do unto Others . . . .” 4

4 comments

1. George Smith

   April 6, 2015 at 3:09 pm

   He’s not even original. That was floated a week or so ago in the LA Times under the premise that the Indiana hate law was actually for the protection of gay people.

   And here’s the quote:

   “What the [law] does is to give that widow lady, that mom and pop operation, the opportunity, if they’re dragged into court … to be able to say ‘I have a sincerely held religious belief.’ … What it does is protect religious freedom for all. If you have a homosexual baker, a homosexual florist, a homosexual photographer, and they say we do not want to participate in heterosexual weddings, that’s their right under [the law].”

   He just embroidered the logic with the Westboro church thing. You can bet the “argument” was circulated in e-mail universally until the opprobrium became so heavy the laws were momentarily abandoned. Emphasis on momentarily.

   In the meantime everyone just overlooks all the anti-shariah laws which are simply the same kind of hate, directed at a smaller demographic over a problem that doesn’t exist.

   Now everyone is compelled to read or hear this excrement passed off as reason, again and again and again for the next few days. And by the end of it they’ll have convinced most of their base that the passing of more hate law is actually to protect the hated on.

    
2. Frank

   April 6, 2015 at 10:51 pm

   Maybe not original, but expressive.

   It is hardly a creative idea. Anyone who has read the four Gospels gets it, but he expressed it well. That deserves credit.

    
3. George Smith

   April 7, 2015 at 1:25 am

   You made my head almost explode with that one. The religion rationalized hate law protects those it’s aimed at is in the Bibles somewhere. OK.

    
4. Frank

   April 7, 2015 at 3:39 pm

   I had a friend in college who was raised Irish Catholic, a decent fellow and a nice guy. One weekend, he decided to read the Gospels.

   He emerged Sunday afternoon saying, “He wasn’t like what I was taught, not at all.”

   The Jesus of the Bible, even of the lousiest translations, is not the Jesus that the Christianists worship.

   By the way, my previous comment was not about the historicity of the Gospels–that is irrelevant to my point, which was about their content.