I once asked an American history prof about the whole religion as a protected status thing, and he said that is has largely been considered "inborn" like race, etc. because at the time of the framing of the Constitution people most generally took the religion they were raised in. I wonder what the framers would say about today's American religious landscape. (Says the girl who makes a living as an anthropologist of religion, whilst rubbing her hands together and grinning gleefully.)
while i think the founding fathers would be pretty proud of their little experiment here, they would also be shocked to see how religion has changed in its influence in everyday life.
You like me because I think or because I spend more thought and time on throwaway pieces on sports as a metaphor for hope than I do on substantive pieces about politics with practical applications? ;)
I couldn't agree more. The whole reason the queer movement hasn't made the strides we should have by this time is that we let "them" (whoever "they" are at a given time, in this case the religious right) dictate the terms of the discussion. That automatically puts us in a defensive position. Whereas what should be happening is that they should need to defend *their* position, because it should be so completely abhorrent to the majority of Americans who say they believe in equality, etc. The fact that we let them couch it in terms of religion, sanctity, blah blah blah just obscures the point.
The debate over marriage is a legal, not a moral or spiritual one, and until we hammer it home that this is about LEGAL STATUS AND RIGHTS, we will never win this one.
And from the corner of left field, can I gank the icon?
Comments 9
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
The debate over marriage is a legal, not a moral or spiritual one, and until we hammer it home that this is about LEGAL STATUS AND RIGHTS, we will never win this one.
And from the corner of left field, can I gank the icon?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment