The Coalition of the Swilling

We debate whether gays should be allowed to marry. They debate the correct method of executing gays.

No, no difference at all.

I HATE that fucking picture.

They're so peaceful, those Religion-of-Peacers.

Of course Williams and the other Christianists are erecting stupid statues instead of hanging gays, Islamists are not functioning in a society with 300 years of post-enlightenment thinking and a tradition of democracy and individual rights, Williams is.

Despite the Bible's explicit condemnation of various forms of sin, you couldn't find a Christian in a hundred who would support what Iran does to gays, and only one in a hundred of those would participate in the deed.

The question is what the literalist evangelicals would do if they had the power, something I think is an unlikely, but scary proposition.

In any event, I was more ticked about his turning a symbol of liberty and freedom to something that is expressly not either or those things.

Bill, you wouldn't find one in a thousand who supports Iran's actions. and, as you say, they don't have power here, nor will they ever, but they do have the power over there. and to hold the two to be equivalent as sullivan does is intellectually dishonest.

Er, Mr. Swilling. Sullivan has said on his blog with monotonous regularity that he recognizes perfectly well that our native Christianists are NOT nearly as Godwful as the Islamists. Which, as he also points out, is hardly a recommendation. (And even there, it would be wise to recognize that that may to some extent be simply because they no longer have as much political power. The New Republic had an interesting article a few years ago on a novel written by Paul Weyrich's right-hand man depicting his idea of America as a Christian Utopia, in which heretics are burnt alive on street corners and every woman who chooses a career instead of a family has to wear a scarlet "C" on her breast.)

Hi Bruce! Welcome to the Swilling.

Gosh, that's darn big of him, isn't it? "Not nearly as bad." It's a cheap rhetorical ploy on his part to get both groups connected in the mind of the listener whilst at the same time having a way to say "Oh but I never said they were equal." Much like the South Park episode on the Katrina MSM coverage ("I didn't say there was cannibalism going on; I'm merely reporting it.") he plants the thought and then dances away from the consequences. Sorry, it doesn't wash.

Out of curiousity, when since, say, 1692 have they had much political power and acted along the lines of the Islamists? Certainly nothing approaching that happened in the religious revivals of the late 18th/early 19th centuries, nor did it happen in the 20th century either, unless Jerry Falwell happened to authorize some gulags that I wasn't aware of while I lived in Virginia in the early 80s, and the KKK was/is no more a 'christianist' organization than the Nazi Party a Hindu religious group.

And as far as that novel goes, the only christian utopia is a place called heaven; the rest of it sounds like sharia and is not found in the New Testament.

Uh, B, the fundies held a fair amount of sway in the 20th century, not to the point of executing gays but to put them in prison. There's a reason there were no uncloseted gays until the 70s.

Google "Comstock laws" and prepare to be appalled.

I always loved Lenny Bruces's take on the issue. "I love what they do to fags in this country: put them in prison with lots of other men. Very clever!"

That's also why I don't fear any kind of fundy theocracy in this country. Voters would toss their asses right out. Most voters may not favor gay marriage but on this and related issues, they would vote in favor of STFU.

"United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries"

Buwhahahahahaha. That has to be the best case citation EVER.

Uh, B, the fundies held a fair amount of sway in the 20th century, not to the point of executing gays but to put them in prison. There's a reason there were no uncloseted gays until the 70s.

True enough, Ken, but, at this time, which direction is the United States going, and in which direction is Iran headed in their treatment of homosexuals? See any public hangings around your neighborhood?

The Bingster uses bad facts, but his premise is valid: There's no moral equivalence between the treatment of homosexuals under Christian and some Islamic governments. There's no comparison now, and not very much even 100 years ago. And in the 1970s? Please. Black Americans had it tougher than homosexual Americans then.

Further, Sullivan is indeed one to use rhetoric to depict that moral equivalance. Which was Mr. Bingley's other point. Andy likes to post an e-mail by someone who does believe that, and then point out that he, dear Andy, didn't say that.....but then Sullivan doesn't disown the missive either. By implication, he supports said moral equivalence.

Speaking of the late 1600s date (which corresponds roughly with the whole Age of Enlightenment thing), I've often wondered, given how much younger Islam is than Christianity, if Islam just has a couple hundred more years of growing up to do.

Christianity also lost most of it's brutal aspects when religious leaders stopped wielding direct political power over nations. The thing that concerns me about the "christianists"/literalist evangelicals is how they directly link their faith to politics.

I don't deny that the fundies held some power in one form or another in this century, Ken; in fact that's my point. In spite of large religious majorities in our country homosexuals have never been treated in a manner like they were in islamic countries (and several european countries, as well). never. has it been equal to other citizens and what they deserved? hell no, but taken in context with treatment around the world at the same time I think the evidence is clear that christian forebearance and tolerance has been pretty damned good.

Bill, I chose 1692 because that was the date of the Salem Witch trials. Or maybe the McCarthy hearings; I forget.

I confess i used to hold out hope for an islamic reformation, but the more I think about it the more I agree with the analysis i saw somewhere (and I really wish I could remember the site) which postulates that such a reformation is NOT going to happen because the Immans know how the christian reformation turned out, and they most assuredly do not want to loose the direct political power that they wield. An interesting but scary hypothesis.

I just do not get the big concern with people who link their faith to their politics. It's something everyone does, be they devout christians or devout atheists. On this level is there any difference between someone who guides their political actions based on the word of John as opposed to the word of Ayn Rand or Hobbes (or, for that matter, Calvin?)? As Ken alluded to, if you dislike their policies you vote da' bums out.

Oh, and Ken: I have to thank you for making the Patriot Act record of my Google searches far more interesting, as I don't believe i've ever searched for so much data on sodomy laws before...

You haven't? Man, you've been missing out...

So I'm discovering.

"Like a broken watch, even Bingley is right twice a day."

---Thomas Jefferson