[Warning: novel. May as well get it all in one post and walk away.
]
lol, that's awesome. We're narrow minded and bigoted because I don't think the State of Oklahoma should promote a single religious agenda. For the record, I do not think most Christians or most religious people of any order are idiots, morons, unintelligent or whatever attributes you assigned. I merely disagree with their supernatural beliefs. And I only speak out on the subject when an attempt is either made to engage in the discussion by others or to force said beliefs upon others (myself included). Particularly when government is used as the vessel for said attempt.
But yes, I believe people that think the economic crisis is the wraith of God as punishment for our debauchery are misguided. My guess (and hope) is most people in Oklahoma would think such a view is also a bit outside the norm. True, in the bronze ages and through the middle ages all bad events were attributed to the wraith of the Gods, but I like to think we've moved past that.
But you do have a point. There are many people in Oklahoma who do not believe in dinosaurs and would have joined in every religious crusade throughout time: from trying to kick Ben Franklin out of the Anglican church for arguing that lightening is not punishment from God to imprisoning Galileo for daring to argue against God that the Earth is not the center of the Universe (banning forks as decadent, arguing germs don't exist because it defies Gods wraith, and on and on and on). I still don't think that's a majority, but the vocal minority is enough to have Oklahoma mocked fairly often. Which is nice. But I don't fault them for their beliefs, until they attempt to have their religious beliefs dictate or represent me. At which point they have made it my concern.
And yes, I am against religious zealots to the extent that I feel religious zealotry can hinder reason, freedom and decency. Is that all religions? Nope. Is that any religion all the time? Nope. I'm anti-republican, anti-democrat, anti-environmentalist, anti-logging . . . at some point I'll find something to disagree with on anything. Fundamentalist religions are the only area where it is considered a virtue to declare that you are right above all else while the rest of the world has it entirely wrong. Not because of a logical conclusion or factual representation, but because of a belief. Glorifying willful ignorance and the absents of discussion or logic.
There is no room for discussion, logic, or waiver. Well, until the great weight of society is too much and you then change the opinion to stave off the loss of followers and again declare that
now you are 100% correct. Thus, the perception that religion is under attack. When you have to be right about everything and have a stated goal of convincing other people you are right while shaping laws, policy, history, education and everything else you can in such a way as to reflect the fact that you are right . . . you will necessarily be in conflict with others. Most things are open to logical discussions and disagreements, where they are not conflict predictably ensues.
A discussion of my beliefs is not a personal attack upon me. Nor should my questioning of your doctrines be construed as such. It is rude to question religious doctrines, but it is OK to have the State proclaim religious doctrines. I really don't get it.
modern day Abolitionist
You are comparing Ms. Kern's quest to "expose and attack" homosexuals with person who were attempting to end human slavery? Wow. Really? You realize all the arguments in favor of slavery were biblical, mostly advocated by Baptists . . . which is the primary flavor of Christianity Ms. Kern is pushing. Or is her great and noble quest her attempt to convince everyone that her brand of thinking is correct? Which also doesn't seem on par with stopping slavery.
Also, as a literalist, Ms. Kern is obliged to accept slavery as it was in the bible. That only changed when society dictated it no longer popular (/lost the war). The old testament encourages the torching of cities and the taking of slaves and Jesus himself never speaks out against slavery while consistently upholding the institution (Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 12:47 [beating slaves is ok too], Matthew 10:24-25). In espousing the Gospel to the masses Paul continues the New Testament endorsement of Slavery Ephesians 6:5, 1st Timothy 6:1 and again in Titus 2:9-10. Peter tells slaves to obey their masters no matter how cruel. 1 Peter 2:18. The saving grace of the Bible on slavery is a passage that tells slave owners they should be kind to their slaves . . . which is a little bit short of abolitionist.
Ahh yes. Hopefully Sally can continue the great fundamentalist Christian tradition of abolitionism. But this time by freeing the gays from themselves.
Feckless resolution
A statement or proclamation that is generally incompetent and ineffectual. With this I agree 100%. I'm surprised you also view this resolution as incompetent.
Cult: formal religious veneration, followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices, a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgato, great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work.
By most definitions of the word, we ARE surrounded by a cult. Thus, my state of mind could be excused. Pretending of course that you know my state of mind and accurately reflected it. Cult took on a negative connotation as established religions belittled new religions, but by definition the term is not inherently negative.
And, yes. I have and will continue to mock the name Mohamed as appropriate. When someone blows themselves and a bus load of civilians up "for God" and to get to get 40 virgins. When someone uses a religions founded by a man who got rich by marrying his former boss, a successful businesswomen, to subjugate women. When a man hiding in a cave uses the name and puffs out his chest in making threats (while still hiding), I will make fun of it. But here, it is mostly people evoking the name of Jesus while making statements. Hence, that name draws my attention when faith healers encourage people to skip chemotherapy, when televangelists try to beg one more Rolls Royce or home renovation from retired widows, when ignorance is pushed as an educational agenda, or Ms. Kern tries to have Oklahoma proclaim that HER religious views are correct and everyone else is wrong.
But I agree wholly, it is remarkably intolerant and insecure of Mulsims to refuse to accept criticism of their religious beliefs.
And finally, the Battle Hymn is posted. Great song. But I fail to see the relevance. It is sung by the Mormons, a group that Ms. Kern presumably has going to hell as heretics on her list. The song itself was adopted by the Union army because the most popular song of the day, Dixie (Lincolns favorite song), was already adopted by the Confederacy. So like "In God we Trust" (put on there after the civil war so future generations wouldn't think they were godless) or "One nation under God" (put there so differentiate ourselves from the Godless communists in the 1950's) . . . the reasoning behind the Battle Hymn itself is somewhat dubious.
I hope my frank, opinionated, straightforward and decent discussion wasn't too narrow-minded, bigoted, hateful, petty or backstabbing. I am anti-religious. But I don't attempt to force my views on other people. When the inverse is not true I will speak my mind. A proclamation of the "citizens of Oklahoma" is just such a case.
Do you suppose Ms. Kern or yourself would sit back and accept a proclamation from the State that their religious views are unimportant and wrong? I doubt it. Actually, no way. If a proclamation was espoused that acclaimed any other deity or other than a Baptist Christian doctrine of religion it would be laughed out of capital. The religious content of the bill is what is important, which is why I think it is inappropriate.
I would oppose such a proclamation from Christians, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics (fun statement that would be), Muslims, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoist, Wikkans, Sikhs, Voodoo practitioners, Mormons, Scientologists, Native Americans or Pagans. It isn't proper to generalize the beliefs of a population in a proclamation of the State.
