Bryant Wright from the well: Gays have “erotic liberty”…

but we don’t have “religious liberty”. Wright spome before Nathan Deal gave his State of the State and his comments were not entirely well received. According to the AJC, the pastor of the day went on to say:

“It is just one example of what our culture is going to increasingly see as an issue of erotic liberty versus religious liberty,” Wright said. “We’re liable to see this with our military chaplains in the years ahead if they in good conscience believe they cannot perform same-sex weddings and could be kicked out of the military.”

That looming threat, he said, is a reminder of lawmakers’ role in making sure government is “protective of its citizens against evil and is working for the common good.”

The main thrust of this language was evidently inspired by Albert Mohler’s post on the 12th which spent much time contrasting religious liberty with “erotic liberty” in the context of Kasim Reed’s termination of Kelvin Cochran. It is in relation to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s progress and the Fire Cheif’s termination that these words should be viewed. The point was not lost on Representative Simone Bell, who reported on her facebook page that she told the pastor exactly what she thought of his words:

8 comments

  1. saltycracker says:

    Guess they don’t select their “pastor of the day” to get all comfy but to reflect on hellfire and damnation.

  2. WeymanCWannamakerJr says:

    Opening prayers, speeches, and the first useless protest are all now over. Commence with governance of state matters that actually matter to the state government. Send the preachers back to their flocks to preach and make sure their moneychangers go with them.

  3. Baker says:

    Bryant Wright also decided it was more important to make a statement about how evil gays are rather than continue to enrich young men’s lives by allowing the Boy Scouts to meet in his church. They are not allowed there now because the scouts decided to not exclude gay men.

  4. Three Jack says:

    Seems preacher Wright suffers from diarrhea of the mouth liberty. One more reason to stop having prayers before government goes about its business.

  5. Dave Bearse says:

    There was a time I thought objections to prayers and devotions at the beginning of public meetings was largely nonsense. Wright’s whining brings into focus that it may be cover for theocrats.

        • DavidTC says:

          Or let’s get a prayer from that ‘Satanic Temple’. The one that is going to put up that horned idol thingy next to the ten commandments, and tried to permission to distribute their pamphlets in schools before the school that had no problem with Bibles being handed out suddenly changed their mind. Or let’s get a Wiccan invoking Hecate and casting a spell to ensure a good meeting. (Note: I do not actually know anything about Wicca, but I’m sure they have some way to bless stuff.)

          And, hey, guys, not only are there religions that would freak you out if you had to listen to them pray, but aren’t you the exact same people who run around insisting that atheism is a religion and it’s being ‘taught in schools’? Don’t they get to pray, also? How would you like a guy to get up there and call all believers idiots for five minutes, and he hopes that religious stupidity will be tamped down in this meeting, amen?

          And, hey, you know, there are actual churches, real, actual churches, that preach white supremacy. Let’s imagine a prayer from *them*.

          Seriously, it’s really astonishing how much people claiming their ‘religious freedom’ are being infringed think ‘religious freedom’ means: “I should have the ability to force other people to listen to my religious beliefs, or the beliefs of some other mainstream Christian denominations, with maybe the occasional Jewish bit (By which I mean an ecumenical-ism prayer in English, not any sort of weird stuff) allowed in there.”

          When thinking about how ‘their rights’ are being infringed, Americans (And everyone, really) should immediately turn it around, and imagine, instead of *them* doing what they’re trying to do, it was the most distasteful version of the thing they’re trying to do. The wrongest version. Someone you completely disagree with is trying to do it, not you.

          And then ask themselves, is *that* something that should be allowed? When actual rights are *actually* being infringed, yes. When the imaginary right to force people to listen to you pray at them, and even preach at them, is being infringed? No.

Comments are closed.