Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


My brother-in-law is a right-wing religious pundit, with all of the bigotries that come with it. I am horrified and sad that a member of my own (extended) family is an intolerant spewer of pseudo-Christian rhetoric. He's anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-"under god", pro-war, pro-Christian (only) school prayer, and probably a Dominionist besides. His job is as an editor for the religious reich rag Christianity Today.

I could handle it if he was just conservative. You know, a genuine conservative, not a neo-con theocrat. But he's not.

I hate confrontation, believe it or not. But I've still asked my dad if I can bring datapard to the family holiday celebration. She's been living with me for over 15 years, and although we are not sexual with each other (we're both somewhat asexual), she is listed as my domestic partner for my insurance. I think it's time that my brother-in-law met the other side. It probably won't make a difference, but I can hope.

In other news, I started another blog on blogger, Another Ravan Perch. I had to have a log in to comment, so I figure what's one more spewing point? No one will read it anyway, but that's ok.

Now I need to find a good translation from original texts of the story of Sodom and Gemorrah. You see, it occured to me that their crime was not anal sex, but violent rape of strangers and violation of basic hospitality as a practice - both of which would be anathema in a desert society! Yes, sodomy really means "violent rape of strangers", IMO, and as such is a bad thing.



( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
Dec. 10th, 2005 01:14 am (UTC)

For some reason I thought she was just a roomie.

Ignore my last comment then. :p
Dec. 10th, 2005 04:35 am (UTC)
Yeah, why the heck not. You have equal rights in your family, after all--he doesn't feel ashamed of the way he lives and who he loves, why should you?

Dec. 10th, 2005 06:04 am (UTC)
Oh, heck, half of Sodom's crime was a criminal lack of hospitality.
Dec. 10th, 2005 08:40 am (UTC)
Your brother-in-law didn't become a christian until he was about 18 or so. Like most who grow up without a basic understanding of christianity and/or in a liberal christian family such as you had, the man became an evangelical christian when he found something that worked for him and was opposite from his family. (Sound familiar?) Also, like someone else I know, he tends to take his beliefs to the extreme and has little tolerance for those which are openly contradictory of his ideas. He is your age, only two weeks younger I think. He is as much a rebel in his family as you are in yours and, from where I sit, has about as much tolerance for your beliefs, or maybe even a bit more, than you have for his.

What makes you believe that the rest of the family isn't totally aware of the close relationship, at least emotionally, that you have with datapard and have had for at least 15 years? Do you think your family is really that unaware or uncaring? If they didn't accept what you have found as important to you and also good for you, believe me you would have been told.

I see no problem with you and your partner being able to spend holiday time with the rest of the family. It will only become a problem if you go with a chip on your shoulder and beard the lion, so to speak. "Hey, Bro, it's Christmas for you and Yule for me. Let's agree not to discuss religion or any of the other politically charged issues that we disagree on violently. We can agree to disagree and not discuss it and still be friendly," whether said or implied by saying little or nothing, will do much to make things go well. At least that is the tack I take with that person. I love him and you too.

The man makes your sister happy. There are far worse things than raising their kids to be kind, loving and christian. Need I remind you that at the age of 16 you argued heatedly that gays should not be allowed to be members of the christian churces in San Jose while both your dad and your mother argued that what went on behind closed doors was not the business of the church? I believe you told your mother that she couldn't be christian and support the gay movement as it was against everything the Bible taught. (It isn't, by the way.)

Soooo get off your high horse, take your partner to the dinner and just don't make an issue of what your relationship is or is not. It is none of his business anyway. You are crossing bridges before you get there again and also spoiling for a fight that you can easily keep from happening. Tolerance works both ways and I truly believe that your tolerance of your brother-in-law and your sister's beliefs will do much to bring about their tolerance of your lifestyle and beliefs.

Love you, and glad to consider datapard part of the family too. I am really tired tonight. Read my blog on here for some of my impressions of your grandmother's funeral. The hearse was dwarfed by the fire trucks and the workers on the highway were openmouthed at the number of trucks. I will see if my pictures of gma for you turned out at all, likely tomorrow. Your mother is also very tired tonight. The funeral home drove her nuts about the minister and pall bearers and the ass't fire chief was a big help, but wanted to make everything perfect for Ms. Vee. The phone has been ringing off the hook for three days such that I was tempted to throw it out the window. Bill is also on hospice and could go any day, and that, too, is hard on your mother as she hates to see anyone in pain when she knows she cannot fix it. Putting some ice on it just doesn't do it in this situation. Hugs for you and for datapard too.
Dec. 13th, 2005 09:06 pm (UTC)
I read your other blog. FWIW, I agree with you almost entirely. The differences don't justify my getting yet another ID so that I can comment there . . . hence this comment.

I don't see a fetus as a parasite unless the mother truly hates the whole idea of being pregnant. And as such I don't take that particular tack in the abortion argument. Small difference, though--we agree that the abortion argument is about self-determination, about choice.

I think it is important to keep religion out of the public square, unless and until we can achieve a normative mindset in society that all religions are valid. Since it is an unremovable part of many religions that most religions are not valid--and this is of course the root of your disagreement with your BiL and the reason you are right to speak out against what he is saying--that's not achievable, in my estimation. But allowing people to be indoctrinated is bad for society, so until those religions quit their intolerance--which I don't think they can--the social good demands religion be put into the private sphere as much as possible. As part of this, I think it would be criminal for the schools to allow students to be deprived of an adequate scientific, historiacl, or philosophical education by allowing their parents to opt them out. This is why I am against religious schooling. We have an obligation to kids--otherwise we may as well leave education entirely up to parents and the internet.

If my mother ever finds LJ . . . well, I'll deal with it then. She's older and more sheltered than your mom.

I hadn't realized you started off an adamant Baptist. But I did believe as a child that a good child must strictly adhere to their parents' religion. And I think I still do. Before there can be rebellion, there must be something to rebel against, and I do not agree with imposing moral strictures on a kid without context.

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2018


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner