Sorry, but that was the first thing that came to mind when I saw that Mike Huckabee intends to form another religious right political organization. I can almost see the motto now: "because truth has a well known liberal bias." Huckabee promises first to fight evolution on every front and then to turn his attention to gravity believers. "After all, gravity is unprovable as well. If God wants to raise people off the ground, he can do so despite what science has to say."
Ok, I mad all of that up--except Huckabee forming this new organization. My second thought, of course, was "wow, that is what this country really needs. Another religious right organization. We are so much better off because of the 25 we have now."
Sigh.
Had lunch today with Anglican (no, he doesn't make me think of religion and idiocy) and while waiting for him read letters to the editor on the Sally Kern issue. You remember that she received some flack for comparing homosexuality to cancer and said "I honestly think it’s the biggest threat even, that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat, OK.” She also suggested that Christianity is the favored religion in our country by design--even though the constitution doesn't pick and choose.
What struck me about the responses was the common refrain that I have grown to really dislike from conservative Christians. It goes something like this: "your problem isn't with Sally Kern, it is with God. All she did was quote the Bible."
Never mind that I object to that being a trump card. As I have said on more than a few occasions, with all due respect, I don't need a Bible verse to tell me that racism is evil or that women are equal.
But what bothers me even more about that refrain or retort, is that it is patently disingenuous and really dishonest. If all Sally Kern said was that she believed that homosexuality was immoral, she would be within some boundaries of reasonable people reading the Bible (and basing their moral stance there). But she said compared it to a physical cancer and said it was more dangerous than Islam. (Not "radical Islam," mind you, but Islam, period. So she is a religious bigot as well). But even if we overlooked the anti-muslim speech, when her defenders invoke the Bible and "God's word" to defend her, they are clearly not being honest. Unless there are verses about Islam and the "homosexual agenda" in the Bible.
No, Mr. and Mrs. Bible Thumper, our problem is not with God. It is with how you interpret her and pretend the Creator shares your personal beliefs. I would respect you a lot more if you didn't hide behind the Bible and blame your bigotry on God. Stand up and admit that you are afraid of homosexuality and you don't know one way or another how the Creator of the Universe stands on the issue. Because you don't.
35 comments:
Streak- Looks like Huckabee is trying to be Robertson part Deux. If he buys a tv station the circle will be complete. One of the few positive lights on another right wing religious group is that lists like this show you that they don't necessarily get along that well, especially the leadership. They often eat their own kind.
The Kern thing is really puzzling in the sense that she's getting air time on this. If you want to generalize about who's dangerous, you can't forget "Christians".
Using the biblical quotes as smoke screen is tried and true sound byte technique. If there's time, however, we all know we can "my quote is better than your quote" each other all day long.
If Kern really wants to talk dangerous, claiming to be persecuted, blaming minority groups for the nation's ills, and throwing unwavering support behind a national leader that elevates himself above the law is a political pattern that has turned out to be pretty dangerous itself. Of course, I doubt she cares.
Later-BB
God has made it clear, in the Bible, His condemnation of homosexuality. Pretending He has not done so doesn't change the truth.
Curtis, did you read the post? Does the Bible actually compare homosexuality to cancer? Does it say that homosexuality is a worse threat than Islam?
Can you give me chapter and verse, please?
Streak,
Read the last paragraph of your original post. You say that we don't know how God stands on the issue of homosexuality. But that isn't true, we know very well how God stands on it. I was responding to your comments, not those of Mrs. Kern.
I guess I would disagree. Are you saying that we should use the OT literally and condemn homosexuals to death? Do we know for sure that the reflection from the bible is not just a reflection of the cultural and historical context?
I guess I would say that we know what the bible says. I am not convinced we know for sure what it means, or what God would have us do today with my gay friends.
Streak,
What is so hard to understand about "Thou shalt not steal", or "Thou shalt not commit adultery", or "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind"? The meaning is obvious. And, the same moral standards are repeated in the New Testament.
This idea that "I'm not convinced we know for sure what it means" is just a feeble attempt at an excuse. We all know exactly what it means. The question is: What are we going to do with the truth we know?
My answer depends on who is asking and how serious you are about the question. If it is just you telling me that I am wrong and that God agrees with you--then I am not interested in the conversation.
If you really want to know how I see this, I am willing to tell you.
Streak,
I thought you already had said how you see this.
Well, if you already know the answer, why are you asking?
People of good will and intention can disagree about how to interpret the Bible.
The question is, are you a person of either? Or are you just an anonymous troll?
Streak,
If it's acceptable to disagree about how to interpret the Bible, would it also be acceptable to disagree on what you mean in your posts?
For example, would it be appropriate to conclude that you are in agreement with Mrs. Kern? I doubt that you would think that is a truthful reading of what you said. And I doubt that God would consider you to be a person of good will and intent if you disagreed with His commandments.
The difference is, that you can read what I said and there is absolutely no doubt who said it. You can also follow up with questions for me.
You appear confident that the Bible is "God's word." I am not that sure. I know that the Bible was filtered through human writers (if it was inspired at all) and so separating the cultural biases of the context that created those texts from broader capital "T" truth is a much harder thing to do.
Streak,
Since you reject the Bible, how can you know whether homosexuality is either right or wrong? And how can you criticize others who have a different conclusion?
I am criticizing those who conflate what they think with what the Bible says. For some reason, it never dawns on them how convenient it is that God agrees with them on all their biases.
BTW, I don't reject the Bible. I reject it as some literal truth. There is a difference.
I would challenge any modern Christian to show where they strictly abide by the old testament law and customs as a code for what is and isn't permitted sexually. For some reason the few passages on homosexual behavior are held up as some kind of proof of god's intentions while the others are ignored. Levirate marriage is explained away as a culturally acceptable practice in the olden days but passages about homosexuality are claimed as god's own attitude right up to and including today. Cultural context, science and common sense don't support Kern or anyone else with her.
This isn't an academic exercise at some coffee shop- this is an elected official promoting attitudes that have resulted in the dehumanization of alot of people and plenty of violence and even death. She should know better.
BB
Is it agreement with the Bible that you are critical of, or is it claiming the Bible says something when it actually does not that you object to?
And, what do you mean when you say you reject it as some literal truth? For instance, do you mean that when God gave the ten commandments to Moses, or when John the Baptist baptized Jesus in the river Jordan that it really did not happen?
Perhaps a) you should assert some good faith suggestion that you are willing to talk, and b) I think BB has asked some pretty decent questions here.
You guys do what you want, but I suspect it's a total waste of time talking religion or politics with someone who won't even sign in with a proper handle. No Joe Forumtroller off the street is entitled to have anyone answer his questions who doesn't want to as an act of charity.
Bootleg,
Both Old and New Testaments treat homosexuality, adultery, fornication, and incest as sexual sins unacceptable to God. Orthodox Christians still believe that.
I am with Leighton here.
No need to feed the trolls.
If you don't want people posting as anonymous, why do you give that option? The purpose of using a screen name like "Streak" or "bootleg blogger" is to keep your idenity a secret.
Often, people use the anon sign in and then still identify themselves. This is a little community here.
There is more to this than the name. It is about some good faith. You have shown none. Have you? What do you hope to accomplish here?
Anon- "Both Old and New Testaments treat homosexuality, adultery, fornication, and incest as sexual sins unacceptable to God. Orthodox Christians still believe that." That's not what I said. I stand by my original statement. The 4 "sins" you bring up are inconsistent in their definition and how they were seen at different times AND the list is way too short. There's plenty of other prohibitions in the bible that are ignored in modern times and no one seems to care. Punishments for these sins aren't carried out in modern times- why is that? Maybe because we have realized that stoning people to death isn't the way to go. In some areas modern people go beyond the restrictions of the bible and in other areas we've realized the bible is a bit excessive. I know that no inerrantist would actually SAY that - but they live it. The point is that there IS a place for interpretation, common sense, scientific discovery and cultural analysis in reading the bible. To simply spew out "the bible say X so that's the way it is" as a substitute for critical analysis is just inconsistent and even contradictory to the way even most fundamentalist christians live.
Later- BB
bootleg,
Your point is what? That we can't be sure anymore, if we ever could, that God has given a moral code? That our failure to live up to God's moral law renders it obsolete? That human thought has taken the place of truth revealed by God? What evidence do you have?
Heh, anonymous posters are so cute* when they act like they're entitled to a response merely because they deign to grace us with their presence and dazzling rationality.
Sorry Anon, your views are neither interesting nor important. Deal with it.
* Not really.
I like the asterisk. We need to use more of those.
leighton,
Why don't you pucker up real big and kiss my ass.
It's raining, it's pouring, Anon is boring.
Did you guys catch the Yankees/Sox game? I usually like Boston, but Wang's pitching was just fantastic. This looks like it's going to be an interesting season to watch.
Boring, true. But I had forgotten that part of the teachings of Christ. It is different in the original Hebrew, of course...
I am a Yankee fan (kind of) and have been wanting to see Wang pitch. Barry Bonds nearly did in baseball for me, but last year's run by the Rockies actually reminded me why I like the game.
I also think it is funny how Boston has changed in my estimation. I always admired that team and kind of pulled for them. But now they are just another good winning team, right? I hope that doesn't mean I have to start cheering for the Cubs, though. That would suck.
Oh, the Rockies run was great. That was the conversation on the street and on the bus for about a month when I was going to and from work. Everyone was mostly good-spirited about it, but there was of course the diehard contingent of "I was a Rockies fan before they were doing well, get the f*** off my lawn" people who I think were mostly ignored.
I'm a Dodgers fan for regional and family reasons, even though they've mostly sucked since I was born. I'm trying to figure out if my work schedule will allow time next month to catch a Rockies/Dodgers game.
I cheered for the Rockies since their beginnings because I remember watching the Denver Bears play in Mile High (minor league). I also remember wanting to see the Yankees play a Spring game one year only to have it snowed out.
For the longest time, the Rockies seemed like a softball league with the ridiculous scores. Seems like their humidor process for the balls has allowed them to have normal pitchers--even ones who might keep the ball up at times.
No, Anon, I'm not saying that the bible isn't useful as a moral code. I try not to practice "all or nothing" reasoning. I didn't say we don't live up to it, I'm saying there's plenty in the bible, particularly the old testament, that we can read very clearly and then have clearly dismissed from our moral consciousness. I'm not saying that it's bad- I actually think it's great that we don't apply verbatum the jewish law. Incidentally I have been chastised for not doing so in some conversations with some fundamentalist muslim friends. Some things considered sinful then aren't considered so now. Some things considered ok then aren't now. That doesn't mean I think we toss everything, but we do use (I'm repeating myself) reason, scientific and historical discovery, context, and critical thinking to determine what can be gleaned from the texts. What is ridiculous to me is the selective application of biblical verses as dogma without the above conversation.
I believe you misquoted a passage. I think it's supposed to be "What doth hinder thee from kissing mine loins?"
Regarding baseball, Streak- I made it to a few Bears games. I think our little league football team drove down from cowtown once to see them. I had a great time and had no clue they were a farm club at the time. I'm moving back to the SE soon which means I have to deal with the damn mascot dilemma again.
Later
BB
bootleg,
The Bible is useful as a moral guide, but only when submitted to human reason and critical thinking? If God is really who the Bible says he is, I don't think he would be willing to go along with that. The God I read about in the Bible insists on being believed and obeyed, even when we don't think he is being reasonable.
Anon- That's well and good and a great theory. The reality, once again, is that you pick and choose which part of "God's word" to follow each day. You or the people who's teaching you follow, have been selective in some way, probably using some variety of human reason and critical thinking which some would say are gifts of god- our little piece of the divine. I'm not at all critical of that. I'm just describing what I observe to be the reality of living out faith in the 21st century and I think we're in a circular discussion. You're convinced that your moral code is taken literally from the bible and isn't subject to any human interpretation. I think the reality is otherwise and just about any modern christian and the bible are the evidence I'd present.
Later-BB
Wow, 'loin,' 'ass,' 'wang,' and 'hinder' all in the same thread?! Potty mouths.
Come on, ubub, it IS Streak's Blog. - BB
Post a Comment