RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

02/02/2009

Audio: These Swear-in ideas have us swearin'

by Jeremy Hooper

Want another frightening example of how the religious right views church/state separation? Well check this out. On todays episode of "Liberty Live" (Matt Barber and Mat Staver's daily talk show), David Barton of the conservative WallBuilders group not only conveys the flawed idea that the bible is some sort of swearing-in requirement (it isn't), but also makes a direct link between a public official's commitment to the constitution of this particular nation and their commitment to the bible:


*Audio source: "Liberty Live" (4-5 ET)

Okay, first off: Harry Potter's an obviously illogical choice. Those book are sooooo thick and heavy! Can you imagine the  2007 08 Harry-Potterpoor person who had to hold those books for the duration of the swearing-in? Poor dear would be fatigued by the time they got to any also non-required "So help me God" parts!

Sure, you could get a lighter paperback version of the HP books -- but that would probably look gauche.

J.K. Rowling's bible aside: There is absolutely no comparison between Gov. Granholm's theoretical request to be sworn-in on another nation's constitution and another public official's quite reasonable and likely request to be sworn-in on a book that is more in accordance with their faith, spiritual or otherwise. Practically, we think she should and probably could be sworn in on a book containing Canada's constitution. But politically, the implications of a government official pledging an oath on another nation's governing document are LIGHT YEARS APART from their decision to eschew a book that isn't part of their faith. The former, if done in the way intended in Barton's example, would demonstrate a disrespect for the role the governor is about to take. The latter, if done without excessive denunciation of those who do use the bible, is thoroughly respectful to the fact -- FACT! -- that this nation allows for all faith views, including the right to not believe at all!

A bible is not a constitution. A constitution is not a bible. The sooner the far-right owns this simple concept, the sooner we can all move on as one nation strong.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Who knew David Barton was so conservative?! I've been going to his gym in Chelsea for years and always found him to be sooo gay friendly! His hot body and downtown fashion sen...what? Really? Oh. Never mind.

Posted by: Sykler | Feb 2, 2009 5:47:31 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails