Posted by: cjobrien | 8 April 2008

American Theocracy #3

Just about any argument against homosexuality can be considered theocratic in nature if not direct substance. The only reason for opposition to someone’s personal adult sexual preference is because of a religious stance on the issue. If you wish to live by your personal religious preferences, that’s fine, but your religion is no excuse for affecting the lives of others. Consider, for example, the latest flap over a lawmaker being allowed to take her lesbian spouse on a taxpayer-funded trip on a military flight:

A conservative group is calling on the Pentagon to apologize for its decision to permit a liberal lawmaker to take her homosexual partner on a taxpayer-funded trip overseas.

Politico.com reports Defense Secretary Bob Gates granted Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) a special exception to House rules so she could allow Lauren Azar, the same-sex partner of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), on a military flight for a congressional fact-finding trip to Europe. Baldwin and Azar reportedly “confirmed their commitment to each other” in 1998, and one news service says Azar is registered with the House as Baldwin’s spouse.

Peter LaBarbera, president of the group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, is condemning the Pentagon’s accommodation of Baldwin. He says it is “outrageous” that the Pentagon gave in to Pelosi and the “homosexual agenda.”

LaBarbera’s tantrum no doubt results from his personal religious views, which have no place in dictating policy to the rest of us. (By the way, I remember Tammy Baldwin when she was just starting her political career in Wisconsin in the late 80s/early 90s when I was a graduate student there).

I’ll tell you how to solve this: ABSOLUTELY NO SPOUSES, heterosexual or otherwise, on tax-payer funded overseas trips.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Actually, any substantive argument for morality of any kind is theological to the core, so yes, any argument against homosexuality can be considered theological.

    Atheists frequently confuse the moral component of their personal lifestyle choices as being something that can be justified philosophically. This is nonsense.

  2. Excellent post CJ, I hope you keep them coming.

    Looney, I have to disagree with you. Morality is not equal to theology. Morality more likely has an adaptive purpose to homo sapiens sapiens. Cooperation and assistance to our families and others is in the interest of our survival.

    And what does atheism have to do with this post in any case?

  3. Waywardcats, I think you are confusing mob rule with morality. Morality is about actions being “right” or “wrong”. “Right” and “wrong” are always with respect to someone’s standards. With a notion of God, there is a fixed standard, but otherwise it is each one for herself. The fact that you can be adamant about your personal standards of right and wrong means nothing in the end, unless the mob backs you up.

  4. A fixed standard? God said slavery was fine – now it isn’t. Just one little example.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: