2nd Posting

Reverend Russell,

Wrote.
" The First Amendment protects your right as an American to the free exercise of your religion. It does not protect your right to use your religion as an excuse to discriminate against other Americans.

As a priest and pastor, I am protected from being forced to marry anybody. Period. Roman Catholic priests cannot be forced to marry divorced couples. Orthodox Rabbis cannot be forced to marry interfaith couples. NOBODY can be compelled -- against their religion -- to marry anybody. Period.

That protection does NOT extend to carrying out your duties as an agent of the state as a county clerk to issue marriage licenses, drivers licenses or fishing licenses.

What if I'm a Muslim and my understanding of my religion is that women shouldn't drive. Can I refuse to issue drivers' licenses to women? Or if I'm a Hindu and a vegetarian -- can I refuse to issue fishing licenses because killing/eating fish is against my religion?

One More Time:
It's Freedom OF Religion -- as in believe whatever you choose or choose not to believe.
It is not Freedom TO IMPOSE Religion -- as in confuse your theology with our democracy.
Honest to Ethel, people -- Get a grip! "

In response Reverend Russell censored this rebuttal: Why?

The thread of your thinking in regards to religious liberty is simplistic and overly facile even in regard to available options at the level of an individual's response to conscience, which in point of fact is where the crux of moral action takes place. Even so in that all societies have some moral basis, religious values cannot be dismissed from the public square any more than the vast array of other positive secular values can be. What you assume is neutral is really a vacuum where competing ideas religious or secular struggle to fill. In a pluralistic society toleration of religious points of view and expression is paramount to the success of the democratic experiment, yet even in elastic societies tolerant of mutually repellant ideas at some point are not able to tolerate the intolerable. Efforts to do so ignore the deeply embedded religious antecedents that give shape to the common heritage and identity of peoples. Jurgen Habermas, wrote that among the modern societies of today “only those that are able to introduce into the secular domain the essential contents of their religious traditions which point beyond the merely human realm will also be able to rescue the substance of the human.”

Thus to argue for same sex marriage purely from the perspective of individualistic freedom and desire is an ultimately barren proposition and to tolerate it in continual opposition to the common heritage must needs to tolerate those who oppose you and in effect be in continual opposition similar to the political situation of abortion. Far better to argue that the impulse and logic of the common heritage assumes the legitimacy and moral basis of same sex marriage as is serves a societal purpose which instead of leading to polarization, would have led to its embrace.

First Posting

Susan Russell runs a hard hitting blog filled with snark, condescension and micro-aggressions called "An inch at a time.'( And no this does not refer to the response of Pinocchio's nose to her posts)
Yet she only permits soft pedaled comments. The parameters of commentary are so narrow that any comment that disagrees with her premises or questions her motives is deemed hate speech, in violation of the baptismal covenant.

So this is for anyone who tries to respond to Rev Russell but is shut out by the delusions of her blog.
We'll follow the same guidelines she gives on her blog and let's see if you can be posted here.

Allow me to  lead by example:

In a response quoting Andrew Sullivan:

"A civil rights movement without toleration is not a civil rights movement; it is a cultural campaign to expunge and destroy its opponents. A moral movement without mercy is not moral; it is, when push comes to shove, cruel.
For a decade and half, we have fought the battle for equal dignity for gay people with sincerity, openness, toleration and reason. It appears increasingly as if we will have to fight and fight again to prevent this precious and highly successful legacy from being hijacked by a righteous, absolutely certain, and often hateful mob. We are better than this. And we must not give in to it."


I  was informed by her posting that using the term "hateful mob" was an ad hominem attack and was deleted. The following was how I responded. Needless to say dear reader, she wasn't about to publish that either.

"Calling for a boycott of mom and pop businesses in Indiana as you did is contemptible. And aptly describing the actions of the progressive left as Andrew Sullivan does regarding the RFRA as that of a mob hardly constitutes an ad hominem attack. As to the baptismal covenant, it is in the finest tradition of the prophets even at the risk of offending to call to repentance of hateful actions which truly are most in violation of the covenant.

I am not the only one to point out the rising totalitarianism of the progressive left and your mischaracterization of my post in order to censor it only convinces me of the contagion. If the loss of freedom of association, freedom of speech and free and public exercise of religion is now the requirement of supporting same sex marriage then it isn’t worth it.

Lastly to delete posts from your readers that challenge your assumptions does not only do a profound disservice to them but to the issues you wish to advance. You may want to think about how that scorches the earth you say you wish to green an inch at a time."

 

This what she published in response:

 

And for the commenter who ripped me a new one for [a] attacking small businesses in Indiana while [b] spewing "hate speech" and [c] being hypocrite for drawing boundaries around acceptable comments on this blog [d] #LifeIsTooShort, dude. Take it someplace else. Seriously. Reading this blog is probably not good for your blood pressure and I'm not giving you a platform to rant anymore so Vaya con Dios. #Seriously

The insincerity of her concern  is noted as is her blasphemous solicitude of "Go with God " when of course her  intended meaning  is "Go fuck yourself". Such a lovely priest. Seriously!