*Sigh*

[ravan]

My brother-in-law is a right-wing religious pundit, with all of the bigotries that come with it. I am horrified and sad that a member of my own (extended) family is an intolerant spewer of pseudo-Christian rhetoric. He's anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-"under god", pro-war, pro-Christian (only) school prayer, and probably a Dominionist besides. His job is as an editor for the religious reich rag Christianity Today.

I could handle it if he was just conservative. You know, a genuine conservative, not a neo-con theocrat. But he's not.

I hate confrontation, believe it or not. But I've still asked my dad if I can bring datapard to the family holiday celebration. She's been living with me for over 15 years, and although we are not sexual with each other (we're both somewhat asexual), she is listed as my domestic partner for my insurance. I think it's time that my brother-in-law met the other side. It probably won't make a difference, but I can hope.

In other news, I started another blog on blogger, Another Ravan Perch. I had to have a log in to comment, so I figure what's one more spewing point? No one will read it anyway, but that's ok.

Now I need to find a good translation from original texts of the story of Sodom and Gemorrah. You see, it occured to me that their crime was not anal sex, but violent rape of strangers and violation of basic hospitality as a practice - both of which would be anathema in a desert society! Yes, sodomy really means "violent rape of strangers", IMO, and as such is a bad thing.

Comments

[weofodthignen]

I read your other blog. FWIW, I agree with you almost entirely. The differences don't justify my getting yet another ID so that I can comment there . . . hence this comment.

I don't see a fetus as a parasite unless the mother truly hates the whole idea of being pregnant. And as such I don't take that particular tack in the abortion argument. Small difference, though--we agree that the abortion argument is about self-determination, about choice.

I think it is important to keep religion out of the public square, unless and until we can achieve a normative mindset in society that all religions are valid. Since it is an unremovable part of many religions that most religions are not valid--and this is of course the root of your disagreement with your BiL and the reason you are right to speak out against what he is saying--that's not achievable, in my estimation. But allowing people to be indoctrinated is bad for society, so until those religions quit their intolerance--which I don't think they can--the social good demands religion be put into the private sphere as much as possible. As part of this, I think it would be criminal for the schools to allow students to be deprived of an adequate scientific, historiacl, or philosophical education by allowing their parents to opt them out. This is why I am against religious schooling. We have an obligation to kids--otherwise we may as well leave education entirely up to parents and the internet.

If my mother ever finds LJ . . . well, I'll deal with it then. She's older and more sheltered than your mom.

I hadn't realized you started off an adamant Baptist. But I did believe as a child that a good child must strictly adhere to their parents' religion. And I think I still do. Before there can be rebellion, there must be something to rebel against, and I do not agree with imposing moral strictures on a kid without context.

M