Monday, July 27, 2009

From GetReligion
  • Who again is the world’s second largest Christian church? Two hints: not only no Vatican but not even a Lambeth and it’s not Protestant.
  • Naming groups in religion reporting or when is an RC or Mormon not? Lots of both journalistic sloppiness (speaking as somebody in the field) and ideologically driven fibbing here.
  • Sigh. The presidential religion again. Censored in the com-box: it shouldn’t matter in a rightly religiously impartial government other than his or her faith serving the common good which most religions promote. That said I still think Obama’s an agnostic (that’s how his grandparents raised him) who thinks ‘Paris is worth a Mass’ or the White House worth a ‘Praise Jesus!’; to cadge votes he’s willing to patronise Middle America and the largely, fervently Christian black America he’s always slavered to belong to by posing as a believer and churchgoer. Another cynical Chicago politician, something he chose to be. Rather like how Karl Rove successfully marketed easygoing oldline Protestant W as an evangelical.
  • Gay weddings in all but name. Related: the Jake-ites on what they say they’re fighting for; well put. I’m all for their practising their religion and otherwise living their lives in peace. (Which includes not being murdered, beaten, robbed, deprived of a living or even of free expression etc. regardless of the crime’s motive — like bad Queen Bess claimed but didn’t do, the state ought not look into men’s souls.) Nicely put that’s the beauty of libertarianism including a truly free market (in which those who refuse others’ money and services hurt themselves): we can all get along! Leave people alone and they will come together. Bluntly put if a religion wants to pretend two men or women can marry each other, or Glen wants to pretend to be Glenda, that’s fine; none of my or the state’s business. Decriminalise polygamy as well. Equalise rights by getting the state out of the marriage biz. Leave it to the religions and the couples. Where the left become a problem here is the implied message: they want to force (that is, use the state to coerce) you to believe in their unreality. Because that class always knows what’s best for you. (I rather like the comment in this blog which said that class has the means to indulge in those lifestyles; they think they can create/change reality.) No thanks. As for religion, some of this class want to be the established church again (in England remain that church), this time of ‘post-modern syncretism’ as Dr Tighe says.

No comments:

Post a comment

Leave comment