The -- well, ONE -- problem with fundamentalist rants is that they're so over the top that it's hard to distinguish between what is theirs and what is satire. I work among a coven of fundamentalists, and their obsession with gay behaviors is so compulsive that Freud would have a field day.
Measure 36
- Thread starter findfirefox
- Start date
I think it's part of their mantra: Love God, Hate Fags, Tithe Generously.COLJohn said:
Their hate isn't confined merely to fags. Have you ever experienced their rants in person?
vinny_spiruccino
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Posts
- 1,871
- Media
- 8
- Likes
- 322
- Points
- 208
- Age
- 55
- Location
- Charlotte NC
- Sexuality
- Unsure
- Gender
- Male
This IS satire, and it's poking holes in the fundie-right's methodology of holding a literal interpretation of some scriptures while reasoning modern day meanings to others. It's so very sad to me that Christianity today has shrouded itself in narrow mindedness and judgementalism. To those who don't know, I was reared by the most extreme of all of them - in the Pentecostal church - where literal interpretations were the norm and not the exception. I.E. - Deut. 22:5 spoke about women wearing "that which pertained to a man" and men wearing "women's garments". To the church this meant that women wore dresses (always, as in it is a sin for a woman to put on a pair of pants) and men wore pants (long of course, shorts were immodest - I hid them in my locker at school & changed when I got there and again before I went home). Even the other fundies (Baptists, Charismatics, Etc) were considered "worldly". Jerry Falwell's wife wore pants, cut her hair, wore make-up, ear rings - they allowed televisions in their homes, went to movies, and even may have enjoyed a glass of wine with dinner. They were all doomed to hell too, no matter how hard they thumped their Bibles.
Needless to say, I walked away from these stringencies somewhat mad at the entire institution with no interest in returning. It was at that time that I began to develop my own spirituality, and that spiritual sense is something that today I hold very dear. At risk of really freakin all of you out, I even read the Bible AND I believe it. BUT I've learned to see the big picture, and have seen through it that "the church" in it's current self-righteous form, isn't what the intent was. There is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus was living today rather than then, he would be hanging out with fags & trannies and those perceived by religious society as untouchable - JUST like he did when he was alive. He lived in similar times - when the "fundies" (then called Pharisees) condemned all who broke their religious traditional laws and rules. He broke them. He rescued a prostitute, befriended her, and drove away all who condemned her. The "law" said you couldn't participate in any kind of activity on the Sabbath - he broke that rule too & performed miracles on the Sabbath. He was condemned by the fundies of his time, just like we are today - they crucified him for his "crimes". The hateful rhetoric touted by today's religious right to me is nothing more than misunderstanding of the Bible's true message. It's not a rule book, it's a guide - a roadmap. For example, I've read here that Paul is perceived as anti-woman. If HE was alive today to explain himself I believe that we'd soon discover that this isn't the case at all. He was writing letters to people who were not Jews akin to Jesus' original disciples, but were rather gentiles who had heard the message but were still surrounded by a Greco-Roman culture where women were property. In an attempt to legitimize the experience of early Christians, he advised them not to do things that would result in the culture's perception of them as something negative. We don't live in that culture. Church people today say he taught against and condemned homosexuals - I don't believe this. Keeping in mind that he saw the day to day life of the culture surrounding him where women were chattle, slavery was the norm, and pederasty was the norm, he spoke in Romans 1 (one of the main homo-bashing scriptures referred to) about people who were involved in worship of false gods, who had rejected the Christian message, and were heterosexuals engaging in homosexual (to THEM unnatural, not to contemporary gays & lesbians) acts with prostitutes available for hire to perform sex acts as sacrifice offered to idols. That's just my view, and I of course could be wrong, but I just don't think that the Christian message was given to condemn. It was given to forgive. After all, Jesus came in a time where the perception was that keeping the rules = good standing with God. I'm deemed acceptable to God because we're friends - He loves me, and that's the whole point. Good fathers do not reject their children when they make mistakes - they lend their guidance and give their love unconditionally throughout the child's life and even through adulthood, because they love their children. THAT is what the message really is, and it's a shame that we've strayed so far from it because many perceive God as their enemy because of it. He's just not, I'm sorry, but I can't believe that. Off my soapbox.
Needless to say, I walked away from these stringencies somewhat mad at the entire institution with no interest in returning. It was at that time that I began to develop my own spirituality, and that spiritual sense is something that today I hold very dear. At risk of really freakin all of you out, I even read the Bible AND I believe it. BUT I've learned to see the big picture, and have seen through it that "the church" in it's current self-righteous form, isn't what the intent was. There is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus was living today rather than then, he would be hanging out with fags & trannies and those perceived by religious society as untouchable - JUST like he did when he was alive. He lived in similar times - when the "fundies" (then called Pharisees) condemned all who broke their religious traditional laws and rules. He broke them. He rescued a prostitute, befriended her, and drove away all who condemned her. The "law" said you couldn't participate in any kind of activity on the Sabbath - he broke that rule too & performed miracles on the Sabbath. He was condemned by the fundies of his time, just like we are today - they crucified him for his "crimes". The hateful rhetoric touted by today's religious right to me is nothing more than misunderstanding of the Bible's true message. It's not a rule book, it's a guide - a roadmap. For example, I've read here that Paul is perceived as anti-woman. If HE was alive today to explain himself I believe that we'd soon discover that this isn't the case at all. He was writing letters to people who were not Jews akin to Jesus' original disciples, but were rather gentiles who had heard the message but were still surrounded by a Greco-Roman culture where women were property. In an attempt to legitimize the experience of early Christians, he advised them not to do things that would result in the culture's perception of them as something negative. We don't live in that culture. Church people today say he taught against and condemned homosexuals - I don't believe this. Keeping in mind that he saw the day to day life of the culture surrounding him where women were chattle, slavery was the norm, and pederasty was the norm, he spoke in Romans 1 (one of the main homo-bashing scriptures referred to) about people who were involved in worship of false gods, who had rejected the Christian message, and were heterosexuals engaging in homosexual (to THEM unnatural, not to contemporary gays & lesbians) acts with prostitutes available for hire to perform sex acts as sacrifice offered to idols. That's just my view, and I of course could be wrong, but I just don't think that the Christian message was given to condemn. It was given to forgive. After all, Jesus came in a time where the perception was that keeping the rules = good standing with God. I'm deemed acceptable to God because we're friends - He loves me, and that's the whole point. Good fathers do not reject their children when they make mistakes - they lend their guidance and give their love unconditionally throughout the child's life and even through adulthood, because they love their children. THAT is what the message really is, and it's a shame that we've strayed so far from it because many perceive God as their enemy because of it. He's just not, I'm sorry, but I can't believe that. Off my soapbox.
vinny, I'm glad you survived your pentecostal upbringing. Just curious, does a pentecostal drag queen have to wear the cow-patty hairdo (her crowning glory, as it were) and no makeup? We won't even get started on the comfortable-yet-practical shoes and the denim skirts... LOL
COLJohn, yes, I have dealt with the rants of many fundies of many different varieties over the years. I do know how to deal with them, by the way.
COLJohn, yes, I have dealt with the rants of many fundies of many different varieties over the years. I do know how to deal with them, by the way.
vinny_spiruccino
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Posts
- 1,871
- Media
- 8
- Likes
- 322
- Points
- 208
- Age
- 55
- Location
- Charlotte NC
- Sexuality
- Unsure
- Gender
- Male
DC_DEEP said:
Oh so you KNOW of what I speak! You just described my family reunion (sans the drag queens) - hair up in a bun, jean skirt, & tennis shoes...
There is actually a growing contigency of inclusive Pentecostals, believe it ot not. They still maintain the exuberant worship services, dancing in the aisles & speaking in tongues, and a life of kindness towards others. They've dropped the traditional dress code though & have welcoming congregations. I actually attended on of their services while I was still living in DC (the church was actually in Philly) and I felt like I was "home". It made ne cry a little...
How do you deal with, DC? I usually just end up doing a slow burn and find an excuse to leave the room.
B_Hickboy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2005
- Posts
- 10,054
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 81
- Points
- 183
- Location
- That twinge in your intestines
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2005
- Posts
- 2,008
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 58
- Points
- 183
- Age
- 41
- Location
- Portland, OR
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Thanks for telling me about the link, http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22004/guide/meas/m36_fav.htmlmadame_zora said:
For some reason I got it screwed up in the other one, this was an actual measure and the posts I pulled are located on a state website for voters so they can learn about each measure.
This is something they are pushing.
Also forgot to mention the voting is over for this. This is old I just came across it while Google searching.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2005
- Posts
- 2,008
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 58
- Points
- 183
- Age
- 41
- Location
- Portland, OR
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
After digging deeper because I recall the Measure 36 DID pass, I wanted too know exactly what they did to the Oregon constitution. I located this on Wikipedia,
"Ballot Measure 36 of 2004 amended the Oregon Constitution by adding the following provision:
I'm in Multnomah County, one of the only 2 county's to have a majority for No.
This makes me a little sad, but I have to wonder why the arguments for Yes, were so off topic, was it to cover up for the gay marriage thing or something?
Got it- "M. Dennis Moore, a Portland church organist, wrote satirical arguments on several Oregon ballot measures, including Measure 36. Moore's arguments ostensibly in favor of the measure were printed in the official voter's pamphlet. For example, reacting to some supporters' claims that the purpose of marriage is for procreation, he argues that "couples who fail to conceive within two years ought to have their marriage licenses revoked." Measure 36 supporters criticized the placement of Moore's arguments in the "Arguments in Favor" section of the pamphlet, but the Secretary of State's Office countered they had no choice under the law but to print his arguments as specified"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_36_(2004)
Now I found this-
"On July 8, 2005, Oregon state senators passed legislation to allow same-sex civil unions. The vote at the state capitol in Salem was 19-10 in favor of the measure. Senate Bill 1000 would create civil unions and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, public accommodations and public services. The Republican Speaker of the Oregon House, Karen Minnis, has publicly announced that she will not let the bill be passed. On July 21, she effectively killed the bill in a series of procedural moves that included a "gut and stuff", where the bill is amended by removing most of its language and replaced with entirely different text, sometimes entirely unrelated to the original bill, then the bill was left to die in committee."
I want Karen Minnis to die.
"Ballot Measure 36 of 2004 amended the Oregon Constitution by adding the following provision:
It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.
The measure was placed on the ballot through an initiative petition brought by the Defense of Marriage Coalition, a group dedicated to "preserving marriage as a union only between one man and one woman". The group was formed in reaction to same-sex marriages performed in Multnomah County and Benton County after their respective county commissions interpreted the Oregon Constitution and Oregon law as authorizing the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. "
I'm in Multnomah County, one of the only 2 county's to have a majority for No.
This makes me a little sad, but I have to wonder why the arguments for Yes, were so off topic, was it to cover up for the gay marriage thing or something?
Got it- "M. Dennis Moore, a Portland church organist, wrote satirical arguments on several Oregon ballot measures, including Measure 36. Moore's arguments ostensibly in favor of the measure were printed in the official voter's pamphlet. For example, reacting to some supporters' claims that the purpose of marriage is for procreation, he argues that "couples who fail to conceive within two years ought to have their marriage licenses revoked." Measure 36 supporters criticized the placement of Moore's arguments in the "Arguments in Favor" section of the pamphlet, but the Secretary of State's Office countered they had no choice under the law but to print his arguments as specified"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_36_(2004)
Now I found this-
"On July 8, 2005, Oregon state senators passed legislation to allow same-sex civil unions. The vote at the state capitol in Salem was 19-10 in favor of the measure. Senate Bill 1000 would create civil unions and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, public accommodations and public services. The Republican Speaker of the Oregon House, Karen Minnis, has publicly announced that she will not let the bill be passed. On July 21, she effectively killed the bill in a series of procedural moves that included a "gut and stuff", where the bill is amended by removing most of its language and replaced with entirely different text, sometimes entirely unrelated to the original bill, then the bill was left to die in committee."
I want Karen Minnis to die.
Similar threads
