An interesting snippet from Peter Sprigg of FRC talking about the upcoming hearing on Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court. Peter Sprigg is the man whom PFOX wishes to see on the Montgomery County School Board helping to decide on the new (new) sexuality curriculum.
Still, he added, “I would say that we would not want a candidate to say they considered Lawrence vs. Texas to be settled law or beyond the scope of review on constitutional grounds.” [*]
A few other interesting little snippets from the usual suspects (CWFA etc) that also show a disturbing intention to re-criminalize homosexuality, if they can.
-Grant & Dale
Dan’s Addendum: “Justice” Sunday II made repeated mention of the gross indignity of Lawrence vs. Texas[*] as though the American public actively seeks to re-criminalize homosexuality and would do so if it weren’t for those pesky judges.
I am new to this term “dominionist”. I googled it and found some rather drastic descriptions. Can you briefly explain the meaning in this context? Also, is this term being used as a derogatory descriptor because these people fit a certain set of criteria or would they describe themselves as such? Sorry for being dense on this one.
https://www.religiousrightwatch.com/glossary/dominionism.htm
Dan,
just a word of caution… some of the Justice Sunday crowd are doubtlessly dominionist. However, I doubt that all of them are.
In fact, dominionist theology runs counter to another ingrained conservative Protestant trait, distrust of government. I suspect that a while good many of the folks sitting in church on Sunday watching the broadcast truly want to “make America a good moral place again”, they would be offended at the thought that they as Christians should take dominion over the secular world. They don’t want to take over… just fight that awful homosexual agenda, ya know.
So while “dominionist” reflects some of them, it is too narrow, in my opinion.
as a side note…. I just thought of the most awful pun: Justice Sunday, for many churches, Just Is Sunday as usual. Yeah, I know…. sorry.
If they don’t want to engage in homosex, I have a suggestion for them: don’t engage in homosex. It’s as simple as that. And it isn’t rocket science.
And leave the rest of us alone.
Timothy, and so you should be sorry! Ok, you’re forgiven.Yo know… that’s ONE of the mysteries of modern political life — a whole grouping of people who are almost obscene in their pursuit of government, yet who’s main philosophy seens to be a demand that government have nothing to to with their lives.No taxes for them, yet run huge deficits that someone must pay for sone day. Home school for them, and creationism and abstinence education for those in the public schools they control. Ban same sex couples marrying, make public announcements that they are too dangerous to parent; but keep pushing for a “parent’s rights” bill. Don’t anyone dare question what the U.S. is doing, but feel free to land the marines without consulting others AND suddenly huge “contracts” for “redevelopment” fall in your company’s lap. Every shenanigan under the sun to grab power, yet we’re only doing this because we’re a moral people…I’m stopping now, you get the drift 🙂
Homosexual acts are still “illegal” in 8 states, though Lawrence has voided those laws so they are unenforceable. In most of the 8 states, bills had been introduced on a yearly/biannual basis to decriminalize homosexual acts, and failed by big margins every time. Youbetcha the religious right wingers have dreams of recriminalizing homosexuality, and expect to add a few states to the 8 above, if privacy rights were overturned by the SCOTUS, probably first in an abortion case. (Privacy rights formed the basic argument for decriminalization of contraception – Griswold v. Connecticutt, abortion – Roe v Wade, and homosexual acts – Lawrence v Texas)