AFA comments: Now 20% more alarming
Yesterday we posted some comments that were left on the American Family Association's One News Now site in reference to whether or not California's anti-gay ballot initiative would retroactively invalidate the same-sex unions that have already been performed. But in the hours since our post, an even more frightening one has popped up on the site, so we thought we'd show it to you now:
Yes that's right -- homosexuality in apparently unconstitutional in the minds of some AFA supporters. And not only that, this reader also seems to offer up tenuous support for our past executions. And yet this is the side filled with pro-America, highly moral, Christian, "pro-family" patriots? Interesting.
But then again, this ONN reader also thinks it was only one sole judge who made marriage equality a reality in the Golden State. So perhaps he or she is "probabely" not the best to trust in terms of whether or not it's acceptable for certain Americans to tyrannically cast their personal judgements against another community's civil equality.
I'm amazed they allowed my comment to be posted:
"This shouldn't even be up for a vote. Religious rights do not extend to telling other people how to live. So if this legal abortion of justice is passed, it should NOT be retroactive."
I wonder which part of the constitution homosexuality violates? The right to bare arms? Go into any gay bar, you'll see bare arms everywhere!
Posted by: Jason D | Aug 8, 2008 10:50:23 AM
I try to read some of the comments at AFA every day. They are a window into a world that I would otherwise not see: The world of ordinary "rank and file" AFA supporters, plus average Fundamentalists in general, I presume. These people must be the audience that AFA's pro writers are addressing to a great extent. They are the people frothing at the mouth with homo loathing, who eat up AFA's demagoguery-laced writing, and then dutifully send in their donations to help fight those horrible homos.
H. L. Mencken once defined a demagogue as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."
Posted by: Richard Rush | Aug 8, 2008 1:47:01 PM
"Christians" are the epitome of the non-racial definition of the "N word".
Posted by: Scott | Aug 8, 2008 2:00:35 PM
The very first commandment is essentially "You aren't allowed to worship any other god." I'm glad America is a theocracy.
The ten commandments are (THANKFULLY) not the basis for our laws.
And I really do wonder how homosexuality violates the constitution.
Posted by: Christopher D | Aug 8, 2008 3:07:56 PM
Of those ten commandments, only murdering and stealing are actually outlawed by civil statutes. And, I don't think that any reasonable or rational person would ever directly attribute those laws to the ten-commandments. Even in their book, Cain and Abel knew that murder was wrong long before the ten commandments.
Civilized societies realized long before Judeao Christian ethics that stealing and murdering should be prohibited (and punished) for the good of the society. Religion was just a convenient fabrication to answer the questions that they otherwise couldn't (or didn't want to) answer. Some of the more enterprising of them found out that they could exploit the fear-factor and even turn a buck by using religion as a club. And they are still preying on that ignorance and gullibility today.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Aug 8, 2008 4:11:51 PM
"...the 10 commandments which [are] the basis for law in this country."
Really?! Yeah, the founding fathers used them all except for these ones: (paraphrasing scripture)
1. Thou shalt not worship other gods.
2. Thou shalt not worship idols.
3. Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain.
4. Thou shalt remember the Sabbath day.
5. Thou shalt honor thy father and mother.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness (lie.)
10. Thou shalt not covet.
Except for those 7 commandments, our law really must be based on the 10 Commandments.
Posted by: GayMormonBoy | Aug 8, 2008 10:20:10 PM
GayMormonBoy, you forgot the dreaded, forbidden and scarlet lettered adultery!
It adultery were illegal, then I would guess that most churches would be mostly empty! Or at least their meetings would be taking place in much less comfortable surroundings.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Aug 9, 2008 4:04:33 PMcomments powered by Disqus