Jesus Wept

[NanceGreggs]

A rightwing acquaintance recently sent an email with a link to the following, “Christians on high alert over hate crimes passage”, adding the query “Is this one more nail in the coffin of Christianity?”

Well, the answer is yes and no, depending on what kind of “Christian” one is these days.

The first line of the linked article – “A hate crimes bill sent to President Obama for his signature raised a red flag for Christians” – sadly, and oh-so-ironically, speaks for itself.

For those of us raised as Christians back in the day, it would seem that enacting laws that prosecute and punish the propagation of hate towards one’s fellow citizens, hopefully reducing same in consideration of the consequences thereof, would be right in keeping with Christian values and the promotion of increased civility and understanding among us.

But that was, as I’ve said, back in the day – before the new, improved, narrow-minded, homo-hating, sword-wielding, the-end-justifies-the-means Jesus hit the shelves, currently being marketed at a pulpit in your area (action accessories, e.g. “Jesus hates Faggots” placards, home addresses of abortion providers, etc., sold separately).

“On Thursday, the U.S. Senate passed a hate crimes bill that Christian leaders have warned for years could greatly infringe on the rights of those who speak to loudly about their religious views. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel agrees with most observers that President Obama will sign the measure -- adding that the president desires to "throw a bone to homosexual activists because they have been breathing down his neck...and this is a way to hold them off."

Ah, yes – the “homosexual activists”, those nasty immoral people who Jesus railed against continually. One need only look to the New Testament to read quote after quote by the Prince of Peace himself to know that – oh, that’s right. He was completely silent on the topic. I guess he had more important things on his mind. There’s also the fact that Jesus’ dad left any mention of “thou shalt not” out of the Ten Big Ones when it came to homosexuality – and bein’ God and all, one would imagine he could have gone with Eleven Commandments if he’d been of a mind to. (Hey, it’s not like He couldn’t foresee a problem, if He thought one existed).

As for the statement that Mr. Barber “agrees with most observers” – who are said “observers”, and what are their names? Inquiring minds really DO want to know these days.

“Barber views the legislation as something akin to a muzzle. ‘Unfortunately, it places Christians – people of faith, people who have traditional values relative to sexual immorality – in an untenable position,’ says the attorney.

Yes, the position IS untenable – if you’re taking the position that spewing hate is part and parcel of Christianity, and shouldn’t be “muzzled”. That would appear to be, on its face, as untenable as it gets.

If modern-day followers of the New Improved Jesus see anti-hate-crime legislation as being somehow anti-Christian, one has to ask exactly what it is they are seeking to “protect” as their God-given right (pun definitely intended) to say, do and promote as part of “free speech” or “freedom of religion”.

It would seem that speaking to “traditional Christian values” would include the oldies-but-goodies – like being thy brother’s keeper, tending to the sick and homeless in His name, treating the least among us as we ourselves would hope to be treated – and wouldn’t be subject to, by any stretch of the imagination, being “muzzled” by government fiat.

But this, of course, is the underlying problem. The current crop of hypocrites behind the New Improved Jesus movement know that what they seek to be exempt from prosecution for is becoming more and more blatantly a matter of hatred disguised as moral rectitude; what is being sought to be “protected” is not the right to speak freely, but the right to hide behind religion while spewing intolerance against those who refuse to conform to the New Fangled Christianity being espoused by those who want to hold on to their prejudices and still be recognized as part of the flock.

“Barber explains that Liberty Counsel intends to challenge the constitutionality of the hate crimes legislation.”

Well, you do that, Mr. Barber. I wouldn’t want to think you and your ilk are wasting time challenging the constitutionality of torture, or the involvement the past administration in war crimes, or the moral reprehensibility of withholding medical care from those who can’t afford it – things that the Old Time Jesus would, no doubt, have had something to say about were he still here.

Apparently Mr. Barber thinks that the lefties, the progressives, the Democrats, are too wacky to know the difference between the freedom to publicly acknowledge one’s religious beliefs and hate speech – which is pretty rich considering the out-and-out wackiness of the “religious right” we, as a nation, have had to endure for far too long.

I have no doubt that if the speech and/or actions Mr. Barber fears will fall squarely under the grounds of a hate crime under the new legislation included loving one's neighbor as one's self, he'd have a legitimate argument. But it doesn't, and he doesn't, and there you have it, plain and simple.

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for spewing hatred and intolerance in the Lord’s name – for they shall inherit the Earth.”

I don’t actually recall that as being one of the Beatitudes – but it’s a whole new world under the New Improved Jesus.

I just wish the Old Jesus was still in vogue. He was someone worth meeting, getting to know - too bad Mr. Barber never had the pleasure.

[Initech]

1. In the words of Stephen Colbert - "This just in, Jesus has quit."

[lonestarnot]

2. R!

[xchrom]

3. these are christians who value their imagined persecution over the real deal jesus.

they wouldn't have a religion if they didn't feel persecuted.

and mega-hype it and mega-hype it and mega hype-it.

[PurpleChez]

12. "they wouldn't have a religion if they didn't feel persecuted."

That is a brilliant statement. I've thought alot about such things but never managed to express it so succinctly.

[Mad_Dem_X]

34. So true! n/t

[Flying Dream Blues]

4. K&R...Nance rules! nt

[donheld]

5. I'm sure to some Jesus was to liberal for their liking.

I mean if the bible has to be altered to be more conservative, they'll have to do the same to jesus.

[central scrutinizer]

35. Who would Jeses underwrite?

Sorry, leprosy is a matter of personal choice, no healing for you.

[theoldman]

6. I tell all of my Christian friends that Jesus would be killed if he came back.

I say this to all of them regardless if they are Republican or Democrat. The Jesus that I have learned about in the bible is not like so many Christians that claim to be his followers. The Jews I know are better examples of what Jesus taught than many Christians.

[elocs]

21. In the good old U.S. of A. if Jesus were here now he would never be recognized

and he would be persecuted, hounded, and likely killed for being a homeless man who talked crazy.

Also, Jesus never had any intention of starting a new religion call "Christianity".

As Ghandi said about Christianity: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

[Stumbler]

39. Exactly!

To paraphrase John Fugelsang, "If Christ came back today he'd be a Middle Eastern Jew with long hair who lives with his mother and spends all his time with thieves, lepers and whores. In other words, he wouldn't even be able to get a job at the local Subway sandwich shop."

I personally believe the same is true of our American Founding Fathers. If they were alive today they'd be repeated lambasted by Fox news for being "the most liberally-liberal Liberals since the inception of Liberal-liberaldom." And then of course, Socialist, Fascist, Nazi Communists...

Rewriting history & religion is fun, ain't it?

[laughingliberal]

7. According to the new and improved Jesus...

that whole 'love thy neighbor' thing means your born again, saved neighbor. Those not 'saved' in the way they prescribe it must be done need not apply. As for that whole good samaritan story which we always presumed was meant to show the fallacy of excluding others, I imagine the new and improved Bible they are working on will leave that one out.

[xxqqqzme]

50. Oh no, it will be included.

The Samaritan will get the injured traveler's home address and send him a bill for services rendered. It will teach that traveler to be more responsible about the routes he takes in the future.

[checks-n-balances]

78. You made me fall out laughing

probably without meaning to. You nailed it!

It's more like comic-tragic, actually, the kind of thing where you could laugh and cry...

[abq e streeter]

8. as someone who aspires to eloquence ( or even coherence) myself,

I don't know how the hell you keep absolutely nailing it every time you write one of your "rants" here.

[ezdidit]

18. Well said. She's erudite.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. K&R my dear Nance...

You are amazing!

Thank you...



I am incoherent in the face of your eloquence...

[SalmonChantedEvening]

10. And they want a new Bible to their make new Jesus legit.

This is so spot on Nance. Thank you m'dear.

[RC]

11. It is truly amazing how all these gods seem to be in full agreement

with their followers, no matter off track the followers are.

How these good Christians can get all this hate and abhorrence from the teachings of Jesus in the first 4 books of the New Testament is truly a miracle.

How can theses people claim to be any kind of Christian when they are so opposed to their founder's teachings of peace and love?

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Jesus was a liberal

[PJPhreak]

37. Who was killed by right wing conservative nutjobs. nt

[Enthusiast]

52. By any measure. nt

[struggle4progress]

14. It's not so clear to me why anyone would approve of the activities made illegal -- namely,

"attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person" -- or why anyone would believe the legislation somehow infringes on a constitutional right: when did sane people ever consider it a constitutional right to attempt to injure other people for any of these reasons?

[xxqqqzme]

51. Ok, now I get it!

They are using this legislation as a fundraiser - as if they needed yet another excuse. But when the first 'Christian' has his toes stepped on, they will be all over using this legislation to prove their persecution - he was robbed/beat up/murdered because he was a Christian. They might hate it now but they will use it like a club.

[JeffR]

15. Backward Christian Soldiers

marching as to war.

[Divine Discontent]

25. amen, brother! that's so true - Backwards indeed.

and I chuckled at Nance's saying God could have gone with The Eleven Commandments had He had a mind to, if there was a huge problem with us pesky Gay people!

best to you all, have a great week!

[madamesilverspurs]

16. K & R - in other words, AMEN!

----

[twitomy]

17. I think I can show you why some Christians are opposed to Homosexuality:

Romans:
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion

I Corinthians 6 -10
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

(kinda odd he "female prostitutes" were left out....)

So you see, these people are afraid that preaching against homosexuality based on these beliefs could be tantamount to a "hate crime".

[ezdidit]

20. Thanks for the citations but there's no violence urged in this scripture.

It's only in the venomous rhetoric of the more heinous preachers who would rile up KKKers before they hold their meetin' after the meetin'. But repression of any sort does not work too well in our country.

[twitomy]

30. I'm not a thumper so I cant speak for them

so I cant tell you what is said at every service. But while I have heard preachers speak out against the perceived sin of homosexuality, I have never heard any exhortations to violence. So would the mere repeating of these phrases from the Bible be considered "venomous rhetoric" punishable by law? If so, I would have a problem with this law as well.

I do find it odd the OP compares the "old" Christians as more tolerant than the "new" Christians, but if you look at these verses it seems the very first Christians werent very tolerant either.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. John 8:7 Invites you to throw stones

if you are without sin. Part of the impact of the verse for Christians is that Jesus, He without sin, refused to throw any stone at all.
Are you without sin? Any of your friends? Not according to Jesus. No, not one. So good luck with that!

[twitomy]

59. Hmm not sure what you are getting at...

Good luck with what? Throwing stones? I dont have any interest in throwing stones at anyone so I
am not sure what your point is.

[Stumbler]

42. Interesting, I've met many-a-Christian who've been either aulterers, greedy, slanderers, and/or

swindlers. And yet it's always "the gays" that seem to reap the most punishment and damnation from God's followers here on Earth. Why aren't these "Christians" ever going after the adulterers in Congress, or the greedy, swindling money lenders on Wall St, or the slanderers who pass themselves off as legitimate journalists or news pundits?

It's so odd that it's perfectly okay to break the commandment about "Thou shalt not kill" if it means going to war with Arabs or using drones to bomb civilians, but heaven forbid someone falls in love with another person that one or two passages of this heavily reedited book 'forbids.'

[Rainngirl]

55. Wow, Stumbler,

You said that beautifully!! Exactly what I've been trying to articulate in response to one of those hate-filled christians.
Thank you!

[twitomy]

60. Yep we can talk about the shortcoming of Christians all day along

And if they were perfect, they wouldnt need Jesus. But I think the OP was wondering why some Christians were afraid of a "hate crime" law. And as I said, they have concerns that preaching
against the act of homosexual sex may be become a crime. Is this true or not? I am adressing this concern directly and not really interesed in exploring all the shortcomings/hypocrisy, etc of Christians as it has no bearing on the question.

[Beer Snob-50]

47. I think we have to go back and look at the times however..

people were trying to propogate the species at the time and (I am sorry) but it is difficult, if not impossible to propogate the species through homosexual activities. thus, if it did not fit what they were trying to do they made it illegle and why not throw the power of the messiah behind it. Paul who wrote both of these letters was a zealot who threw himself into whatever he did.

[elshiva]

79. Bring back slavery. The New Testament say it's okay.

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

[twitomy]

80. *Sigh* Once again, no one will answer my question...

Will this "hate crime" law make the mere preaching against homosexuality (without any exhortations to violence, which BTW is already against the law) a crime? If so, I have a problem with it. This is the issue Christians are bringing up. Is this a valid concern? And just like the OP, instead of directly addressing the concern, everyone here is dancing around it instead. Why is this?

[sinkingfeeling]

84. No, the bill does not prohibit the preaching that homosexuality is a sin. That's why the bill's

language was quoted above. The so-called christians that are claiming that their rights are going to be violated by this law are fools who cannot read and are pushing their own agenda.

[twitomy]

85. Where is the bill language quoted here?

Its not in the OP...There are a lot of posts here...can you give me the post number?

Update: post14?

If thats it I dont see the issue either. But I want to dig more...

Thanks

[texastoast]

86. They are reaching

Freedom of speech is just that. If the ACLU defends the right of the KKK to march, this spinful "Christian" spew will be alright.

They just want to whine.

The "female prostitutes" to which you refer were the priestesses of the sacred goddess temples. And it was only through violence and massacre that followers of Yahweh established the patriarchy which reduced women to property and abolished sexual freedom. The modern concept of an equiarchy just won't do. That's what it is really about.

[NICO9000]

19. They conveniently opt not to mention this part of the legislation

"The bill also creates a federal crime to penalize attacks against U.S. service members on account of their service."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j3JXA...

It's probably a good bet that language was put there thanks to the filthy Phelps family who have no problem picketing the funerals of Iraq war vets along with their hideous anti-gay bullshit. If you've never seen this doc, it's worth an hour of your time. Presenting "The Most Hated Family In America":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xQ_N_-UiZw

[DesertFlower]

22. K&R.

[The Wizard]

23. Some of these new Christians

have a thing for flaming crosses.
Westboro Baptist will be here this week to protest Jews. Now when did God start hating Jews and fags? That's a lot of hate in one place.
My guess is if they had to choose between Jesus and beer they'd go with beer.

[twitomy]

63. "New Christians"?

Christianity has been after the jews and gays for a millenia

[Divine Discontent]

24. I never tire of stating these "right wing Christians" are modern-day Pharisees & an affront to

Christ's call to love your neighbor as yourself.

They spew such vile bile all over the term "Christianity", that one would think the Prince of Peace couldn't be heard - but He is - He is heard in the voice of that blogger who writes His love with unconditional warmth and challenges us all to be something better than we were the day before.

God bless you, Nance. I hear & see Jesus, my Lord and Savior in your words.

You are blessed, and loved....

DD

[NanceGreggs]

26. If I am loved ...

... I am truly blessed.

And if I, in turn, appreciate my capacity to love, I am blessed beyond measure.

[voc]

27. Thank you

Love thy neighbor as thy self. One can tell you do that.

[eridani]

28. Not only is their sociopathic belief system not Christianity--

--I don't event hink it counts as religion. Their "faith" is nothing but a justification of their own sociopathology.

[DonCoquixote]

29. Religion vs God

It does not matter if you are talking about Islam, Judaism or Christianity, but when either of these gets to the point of getting political power and financial influence, they all become corrupt, vicious, and totally opposed to the actual Virtue of their God.

Take for example the suicide bombers who kill in Allah's name, thinking they are guaranteed paradise. In Mohamed's last sermon, he is asked if he knows that he will go to heaven. He says outright "No" that he will have to be judged and throw himself on God's mercy like everybody else. Apparently those bombers must be practicing some different faith than the prophet (peace be upon him), but then again this is the same prophet that was quoted as saying " don't ever excess in religion , the previous nations where simply destroyed by excess in religion."

As far Christianity, we can all laugh about how the person who said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" is supposed to have chosen American rich as his people. Yes, we all know John Calvin did that nasty doctrine of the "elect" where money and power here were supposed to reflect god's Favor, which is where modern Calvinist (Baptists, Pentecostals, the usual suspects) get the idea that poor people are damned. I wonder what Bible John Calvin read.

Somewhere in Hell, Satan must be having a laugh that for every religion God creates, he finds a way to make it all about getting rich and killing people.

[Are_grits_groceries]

31. I call them Leviticans, and I will refer to them that way

forever instead of Christians. They seem to have taken Leviticus and Numbers and used them as their guides. Christian is a veneer for their hate. I would take out ads and put it on billboards if I had the money.

People can and do nitpick the Bible to death. The book of Matthew is one that contains a lot of the meaner quotes of Christ. That may say more about Matthew and the people transcribing the works decades later than it says about Christ.

When I had to go to church, I absorbed a lot of the messages from the Bible. The overall message that Jesus gave to me was one of compassion and the "Golden Rule." People who do such heinous things in his name, do so because of their own character and not because of Jesus. I believe they have projected their beliefs onto the NT.

If I belong to any church at this point, it is what I call "the Church of the Other Foot." What would you do if the shoe was on the other foot?

Thank you Nance!!!

[texastoast]

56. Perfect

They are Leviticans. If only people would study about the Levites and the attendant political caste system all in the name of Yaweh, a mountain fire god, not much different from Zeus.

[Mad_Dem_X]

33. Right on the money, Nance!

It blows my mind that these so-called Christians are up in arms over an anti-hate crime law. Does that mean that are PRO-hate???

[ThisThreadIsSatire]

36. On his his death bed...

Karl Marx is said to have stated, "I am not a Marxist".

I can't help but think that many today would cause Jesus to say, "I am not a Christian".

[Ikonoklast]

38. They worship Supply Side Jesus, not to be confused with the original.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

40. Too bad you weren't on DU yesterday

you could have made that very eloquent statement here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[rd_kent]

41. If christians want to discriminate against gays, let them....

that way, everyone else can start discriminating against christians. I would be the first to put up a sign in the shop window "christians not welcome here"

[PSzymeczek]

72. I don't patronize businesses

that include a fish in their advertizing.

[rd_kent]

76. What if they sell fish?

[Overseas]

43. K&R! //nt

[Maestro]

44. Excellent and so true

The Liberty Counsel and Matt Barber are what is wrong with religious society and world instransigence and ignorance in general.

[Utopian Leftist]

45. Nance Greggs for President, 2016!

I kid you not!

[Harry Monroe]

46. Nance, the title basically says it all "Jesus Wept"

Indeed, Jesus would be weeping were He here with us on Earth today. There is a lot to weep about.

[Demeter]

48. Don't Confuse The Indoctrinated With the Facts

they simply cannot handle them. It's like an allergy.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

49. “Is this one more nail in the coffin of Christianity?”

Shouldn't that be, "Is this one more nail through the hand of Christianity?"

And as I've said in several earlier posts, every Bible passage that seemingly makes it OK to hate gays is an Old Testament passage. When Jesus died, ALL the old "Mosaic" laws of the Old Testament were repealed in favor of Jesus' teachings of love and forgiveness. So if someone cites an Old Testament passage as authority for anything, they'd better be Jewish, because Jesus revoked all those old laws. If you REALLY believe what the Bible says, that is.

That doesn't even get into the issue of the FACT that all the anti-gay writing in the Bible was dropped in there by a handful of its writers (one in particular) who were horrifyingly homophobic. Just like all the stuff from the Old Testament that's so horrible to women (and there's plenty of it) was written primarily by one author who had horrific problems with women (and most scholars believe he was a closeted, self-hating homosexual).

[Bill McBlueState]

70. two things

1) that "one author" was Paul, whose writings are in the New Testament.

2) Jesus is said to have claimed that his purpose was to fulfill the laws of the Old Testament, not revoke them.

I find it easier to ignore both testaments, rather than try to fold a modern understanding of sexual orientation into an ancient religion.

[ejbr]

53. k & r !!! n/t

[Rainngirl]

54. Stellar!!!

[texastoast]

57. Here's your Molly point

[alfredo]

58. Gee, they sound like the traditional values conservatives in Iran and Afghanistan.

[cliffordu]

61. Excellent work, again, Nance - K&R

[Rosa Luxemburg]

62. Unfortunately for Christianity it has a thug element

[MrBlueSky]

64. Hey Nance!

Right on with this one... there *ARE* some Biblical references that fuel the fires of hate, e.g. "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties, for they have brought it upon themselves." (Leviticus 20:13 Living Bible translation)

But, all in all, Jesus and God have no capacity for hatred. God is love and cannot feel hate. But, most importantly, these scriptures do not change someone's heart. Those who truly feel that homosexuality is an "enormous sin" (Leviticus 18:22 Living Bible) will not change homosexuals... especially with hatred. It only causes defensiveness in the person who being persecuted.

[texastoast]

83. The more I read and research

The more I believe that Jesus was talking about a different god than Yahweh. Have you ever seen this? Hysterical.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1 ). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21 . In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

[Joey Liberal]

65. Great article! nt

[NorthCarolina]

66. Excellent Article....Thank You, and a hearty K&R n/t

[Martin Eden]

67. Thou shalt not infringe on God's given right ...

... to spew hatred at those whom God in His infinite wisdom hath made different from thou.

[BuelahWitch]

68. "...those nasty immoral people who Jesus railed against continually..."

Am I missing something here? When did Jesus say ANYTHING about homosexuality? The scriptures cited upthread belong to the Apostle Paul, not Jesus. My Sunday school lessons are rather rusty, but I don't remember anything being said about homosexuality in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John...

[JimWis]

69. K&R - Excellent as usual Nance.

[MadMaddie]

71. Nance you have done a great job of pointing out that they

are faux Christians. The only reason they hate this legislation is that it infringes on their belief that they can spew filth from their mouths but also committ violence against gays and anyone else they don't like.

Well done Nance!!

[BrklynLiberal]

73. Proud to K & R

[kentuck]

74. He really did.

Have they come out with that new Bible without Jesus yet?

[saltpoint]

75. This joint is a lot more fun when this OP shows up.

I wondering if some or most of the same people who think stem cell research is Satanic also feel that hate crimes legislation is immoral.

These folks are uninformed at best and petty and malevolent at worst, and it seems as if they need a hyped-up crisis of one sort or another in order to define themselves.

What they are is assholes, which is fairly succinct and to the point, and as definitional as I can get for this particular group of howling morons.

If folks do not want to have a same-sex relationship they should not have one, and if other folks do want a same-sex relationship they should be able to have one without impediment from legislators, church crazies, or anybody else. I really don't see why that is so complicated.

It's nice for us to come in after commitments and chores to read great writing, which this OP's posts afford in generous measure.

[Gamey]

77. Question about: "But this, of course, is the underlying problem..."

Came to my senses in that this quote of Nance's would be better received for more discussion than my original thought of "God raped Mary."

Anyway, I completely, totally and utterly believe someone doesn't need to hide behind religion to speak freely. But that when they do, they are even more of a coward. How can anyone be certain that some idiot bigot's prejudice is truly in the name of religion? Talk about playing right into their beliefs!

Therefore, abandon all notions of religion but one. It has remarkable resemblance to our Constitution. That is, "All men are created equal..." It is so fucking simple it boggles the hatred mind.


Nance's paragraph again...

"But this, of course, is the underlying problem. The current crop of hypocrites behind the New Improved Jesus movement know that what they seek to be exempt from prosecution for is becoming more and more blatantly a matter of hatred disguised as moral rectitude; what is being sought to be “protected” is not the right to speak freely, but the right to hide behind religion while spewing intolerance against those who refuse to conform to the New Fangled Christianity being espoused by those who want to hold on to their prejudices and still be recognized as part of the flock."


On edit: the "Constitution" can generally be regarded as: 1. the Declaration of Independence; 2. the Constitution of the United States of America; and 3. the Bill of Rights. Three happens to be one of my most favorite numbers.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

81. Good OP

but I disagree that this is some new fangled type of Christianity. This sort of intolerance has been around for centuries.

[Orsino]

82. The position of the haters was *already* untenable...

...with this bill merely a symptom of the changing times. It is typical of the pinheads that they would try to demonize the law, while denying the existence of the historical forces that created it.