Trading on Ignorance

Wow! Talk about stoner pride!* The Rev Ken Hutcherson is practically breathing it.
Civil Rights: Law, not dogma

The seminal moment in Thursday night's heated debate between King County Executive Ron Sims and Redmond Pastor Ken Hutcherson came when Sims, himself an ordained preacher, refused to trade biblical arguments with Hutcherson "because civil rights is not a theological debate."

To which Hutcherson shouted, "It is. That's the difference between us. You think you can separate your basic foundation of what makes you a moral person from your political views -- I do not."

Yes, and it's a difference that serves Sims well.

(emphasis mine)

No kidding! Hutch seems to think the Constitutional protections for and from religious beliefs are only applicable when not in conflict with his own silly solutions.
These are protections which - and how many times must we keep repeating this!? - protect people of any or no religious beliefs at all. The Rules are inclusive and the Law of this land.

If Hutch wants his politics theocratical, he had best heed some redneck advice and leave this here partic'lar country if'n he don't like our Laws and freedom. Despite our current wanna-be fascist Administration's Faith Based Initiatives, the United States has never been and will never be a Theocracy.

Hutcherson speaks of the "sin" of homosexuality. So what other sins would he insist the law allow as grounds for discrimination in housing, employment and lending -- failure to honor one's parents, the making of graven images, coveting thy neighbor's ass?

Fundamental civil rights should not depend on the whims of either the pulpit or the polling place.

The first paragraph there needs no expansion. It is the reason for the first 2 functional points of the 1rst Amendment.

The last sentence speaks even more broadly to the sorts of mischief with which our Great Leader has been engaging, ostensibly, in the name of Homeland Security.

I hope it is totally clear that I love the breadth and scale of the cultural miliue that is America. Irrespective of my thoughts on the matter, there is indeed plenty of room for Rev Hutch's bigoted IDism and such is duly protected by The Rules of our fantastic nation. Hutch, and folk like him everywhere, have got to learn this essential fact about democracy: it includes everyone. The Laws are for everyone. The morality which he espouses, brutally anachronistic and irrelevant as it is to our ever evolving society, is always going to be his to entertain and utilize.

There is simply no Legal means for him to physically compel anyone who doesn't share his little subscription to adhere to its dogma. And his ignorance and pomposity vis-a-vie the nature of morality.. well, I'm not even going there this morning.

Simply put Ken, you really need to read The Rules before trying to rewrite them.



*
A sense of pride derived merely from the fact of one's ostracism or repudiation of the value of one's decisions and lifestyle.

Comments

  1. Mike,
    You've been on a tear lately and I'm enjoying it immensly. Keep it up.

    You left me hanging - after Hutcherson made his biblical, bold, and bogus claim, how did Sims respond?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know! lol! The article doesn't say, but I'll guess from its tone that Sims, also a christian minister, spent much of the night ignoring, or at least circumnavigating!, those kinds of entreaties to theistocratic argument.

    I'm glad King County has a guy with that kind of integrity running their works. Seattle seems to have made strides in its municipal management since he took over.

    And the comments are seriously mixed on the PI's comments section. Oy Vey!

    lol

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reverend Hutcherson has trouble with numbers. None of the statistics he quoted were even close to correct. To see the full fact check see my post.

    http://gaycurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2006/03/reverend-hutcherson-liar-or.html

    ~The Gay Curmudgeon

    ReplyDelete
  4. Has anyone found the article Sims referred to in the debate regarding the genetics of homosexuality? He mentioned Scientific American and "research and scholarship", but googling those brings up too many results.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yah, it's certainly pretty scattered and sketchy information, as is it really matters. I really don't think you need a genetic modifier to legalize your choice of adult sex partners, but it is as interesting as every other developmental aspect of our species.

    And not nearly as destructive as Rev Hutch'son's.

    ReplyDelete
  6. HA!

    ". . as if it really matters . . . ", of course.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts