Brokeback Bomb
I’m going to depart from my normal discussion of overtly political matters, to discuss the latest developments in the Culture War.
I’m sure we’ve all seen the enormous push placed behind Brokeback Mountain, a tale that’s designed to bring Gay culture into the mainstream through the medium of movies. The mass of critical acclaim is being used to advertise Brokeback , and even slightly dissonant voices [see the treatment of Gene Shalit for portraying the behavior of a homosexual character as 'sexually predatory' -- despite giving an overall positive review for the movie] are shouted down and threatened until they toe the line of homosexual rights agenda. Hollywood is tripping over itself to try to place Brokeback in the pantheon of all-time great film; early buzz has it as a prohibitive favorite for Best Picture. Already, it has recieved 7 Golden Globe nominations, and has won 3 Critic’s Choice awards [Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress]
How are people reacting to the Brokeback phenomenon? They’re staying away in droves. Through 5 weeks of theatrical release, Brokeback has brought in a bit more than $22 million dollars. In contrast, utterly unpublicized and unapologetically targeted for mainstream America horror picture Hostel netted just shy of $20 million in its first week of theatrical release. While Brokeback has reached the studio’s criterion of success (a modest profit to date of $7 million over production costs, though post-production advertising costs have exceeded $23 million to date), the media, critic, and advocacy group push to get it to attain cultural relevancy and popularity have failed.
Seismologists predict that eventually Hollywood will become physically detatched from the rest of America via earthquake; it will be a fitting match to the moral distance between the public and the Left Coast.
*sigh*
Okay.
Movies don’t make you gay.
Beyond that, the only “homosexual agenda” out there is the one to get people to stop discriminating because of what gender you prefer to sleep with.
No one is out to make people gay.
Getting people to accept that people are sometimes gay or bi or would rather be the gender they aren’t isn’t going to in turn make those newly accepting people gay. It just makes them a little less biggotted.
And in the end, what is really so bad about that?
After all, Jesus ate with whores and tax collectors. In his day, you couldn’t get much worse than that.
Take it from soneone who works in a threatre-
It isn’t so much of a bomb as it is due to the release.
Hostel is a wide release opening on thousands of screens. Brokeback on the other hand is in exclusive release. For example, here in ORlando Hostel is in a few dozen theatres all over town. Brokeback on the other hand is playing in ONE theatre which has lines around the corner and been selling out every sho constantly.
apples and oranges to compare the grosses of a wide release to an exclusive release.
The Hueman: I was waiting for this– I saved one of the most telling pieces of evidence for this particular arguement.
Some movies do indeed open to wider theatrical release– they start out with hundreds, and sometimes thousands of screens. Of course, smaller budget films tend to get a smaller initial number of screens, and are expanded if those screens show good return.
Brokeback had a relatively small number of screens on release (about 500) — and is still playing in about 500 screens. On the surface, those numbers seem to be compelling evidence that Brokeback is doing well, given the scope of its release— however, when looking at those 500 screens today, and comparing them to the initial 500 screens of release, the result is telling.
There’s a term called ’screen retention’ – meaning that a theater continues to show a movie because of its popularity/profitability/attendance. Every movie in theatrical release has a ’screen retention rate’ — and Brokeback’s is among the worst so far this century.
To date, theaters that have screened Brokeback have brought it back for a second week of viewing at a 19% rate — puting it slightly behind such recent luminaries as ‘The Longest Yard’ and ‘Aeon Flux’.
Apples to apples, screen to screen, Brokeback remains a failure. Brokeback has gone through just over 2,100 threaters YTD, through 5-5 and a half weeks of theatrical release — about the same number of screens that have shown Munich over 2 and a half to 3 weeks. Munich, in approximately half the time, has made more money than Brokeback Mountain — and no one is denying that Munich has been a box office bust to date.
The media is unwilling to hold Brokeback to any standard beyond appropriate advocacy. Its a shame.
3.14—
Movies influence culture; that much has long been evident.
What you deem bigotry is the belief that homosexuality is a lesser, inappropriate, evil, and fundamentally counterproductive lifestyle.
News flash: It is. There is no reason to promote ‘tolerance’ of destructive, immoral behavior. We don’t tolerate child pornography, we don’t tolerate murder, we shouldn’t tolerate sodomy.
Jesus certainly spent his time among the sinners– but he never let them forget that what they were doing was Sin, and that the price of redemption was belief — a belief founded on the repudiation of sinful life, and a request for salvation undeserved.
Pubi-
“Movies influence culture; that much has long been evident.”
Um actually that is open for debate. I will give you an example. Arnold goes around and kills hundreds of people in his latest movie. He uses a machine gun. By your logic, many of the people that see this movie are now going to go out and be more likely to get a machine gun and kill hundreds of people. NO statistic supports this claim. Sorry.
“What you deem bigotry is the belief that homosexuality is a lesser, inappropriate, evil, and fundamentally counterproductive lifestyle.”
Actually, just because you think it is lesser does not make it non-bigotry. If you thought being black made you lesser of a person and by the law of God (they are the children of the child of Noah that looked upon his nakedness) slaves to all mankind, you are still a bigot. YOu may think it is counter-productive and that is fine however, it also occurs naturally within nature among many different primates and mammals in general. So you argument here is that God made the animals wrong too. Flawed arguement.
“News flash: It is. There is no reason to promote ‘tolerance’ of destructive, immoral behavior. We don’t tolerate child pornography, we don’t tolerate murder, we shouldn’t tolerate sodomy.”
News flash: Child Porn steals innocence. Murder steals life. Sodomy steals your ass-cherry. *Hums softly “One of these things is not like the others”* Beyond which if you would like to do just a slight bit of research on this subject you would find that sodomy is a horrible misnomer. Look it up sometime. Sodom & Gomorrah wasn’t about ass-cherries.
“Jesus certainly spent his time among the sinners– but he never let them forget that what they were doing was Sin, and that the price of redemption was belief — a belief founded on the repudiation of sinful life, and a request for salvation undeserved.”
Actually, during his time among the sinners, he usually talked to them as equals. This would be based on the fundamental idea that all creatures whether they are acting in the right or not are still the children of God and deserving of His love. I beleive in a God. Not the God of the Book but still a God. And I am, by your definition, sinful. But the part of your statement which shows that you never paid attention is Sunday school is the part where you say “and a request for salvation undeserved.” Wrong. It is the acknowledgement of the sins themselves and understanding that you are unworthy of the redemption of Christ.. this much I agree with however, you seem to think that a request must be made. Not so my friend. Nothing you can ever do “earns” your place in heaven. No request must be made. God will either let you in or not. A request implies that you have some say in the matter. That you offer something. You don’t.
Oh yeah and here is my favorite quote ever out of that book that seems to be ignored more than any other:
“Judge not, that ye not be judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” Matt. 7:1-5 KJV
Now I await the biblical retort.
One other thing… you say that Hostel was unpublized… maybe where you are but not here. I have not been able to watch TV for weeks without seeing something about Hostel atleast 3 times an hours. I have seen two commercials for Brokeback Mountain. 2 versus three per hour…
Those damn gay people and their agenda….
Movies influence culture; that much has long been evident.
The extent to which movies influence culture is actually still up for debate. I can sit in a theatre and watch a movie showing the action-actor-of-the-day going through and killing any number of people as the anti-hero star of the movie. Strangely, I do not leave the theatre with that drive. I never have, even from earliest childhood.
In fact, I can’t think of anything that I have done simply because I saw it in a movie or on television or in a game or in a song. I may have been inspired to some creative expression by them, for example a character created for a roleplaying game, or an idea for a story or element in a story. I have not, however, patterned the core of my being on these things.
What you argue influences culture others argue is influence by culture. The figures that are used to say “movies influence culture” can be used to say that “culture influences movies” just the same. They measure trends, they do not measure the intent of people.
What you deem bigotry is the belief that homosexuality is a lesser, inappropriate, evil, and fundamentally counterproductive lifestyle.
News flash: It is. There is no reason to promote ‘tolerance’ of destructive, immoral behavior. We don’t tolerate child pornography, we don’t tolerate murder, we shouldn’t tolerate sodomy.
A couple of references for you:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah
You and I do not share the same interpretation of the bible. You have a more “conservative” view of what the bible says. I beleive, on the other hand, that the translations of the bible are not perfect. It could be that the interpretors had agendas. It simply could be, and I beleive to be just as likely if not more so, that they simply interpreted the bible in light of what they were taught it said. Does that mean that I find it to be inadequate for spiritual study? No. I beleive in God and Jesus, so obviously I beleive that the bible holds truth. However because I am reading the writings of men, I study it more carefully, compare passages and seek out different interpretations and translations as I am able to. Even when I was studying under fundamental teaching, I was seeking out original translations so that I could compare words and be sure of the meanings. That was always very important to me.
I am not convinced that the Bible holds the same view of homosexuality as Fundamentalists do.
The bible is very clear of how God feels about, for example, idolatry. Passages used to refer to homosexuality as a sin, on the other hand, lend themselves to interpretation. Examine the links to see what I mean.
At any rate, as a woman, according to the scriptures that are oft quoted to denounce homosexuality, I’m okay in my sexual preferences.
Which begs the question, if homosexuality were bad, wouldn’t there be something about lesbianism in the Old Testament?
Jesus certainly spent his time among the sinners– but he never let them forget that what they were doing was Sin, and that the price of redemption was belief — a belief founded on the repudiation of sinful life, and a request for salvation undeserved.
Jesus also never belittled them. He never made them feel like they were horrible people or less than human or pathetic or hated or undeserving of God’s kingdom. The religious leaders of Jesus’ time did that. Remember that Jesus said he came for the sinners. Had the religious leaders of that time been merciful towards the sinners and treated them the way Jesus did, do you think Jesus would have chosen THAT time to be there? Didn’t he state in several places that those people were the ones that he came for?
The way you speak of homosexuals, the way that fundamentalists do, is the same way that the religious leaders of Jesus’ day spoke of sinners and treated them. And you (including the fundie religioso leaders in this) would with-hold Jesus from them. You place restrictions of salvation. You make ritual and step-by-step of something that is supposed to be a gift given freely. I have to echo street on this. If the request must be made, then a requirement is put on the gift. The point of a gift is that you don’t ask for it. You simply accept that the gift is there and take it.
The people that Jesus sat with and blessed, they are never referred to as former-whatever-sin-they-were-doing. Have you ever noticed that? It never escaped my notice. It was one of the many things that led me to question the fundamentalist interpretation of the bible.
Movies shape culture- the extent to which they do so is indeed debatable, but there is little question that they do — we need go no further than note the influence that phrases like ‘The Seven Dwarves’ have been applied far afield from Snow White. Like it or not, there have been scientifically duplicated results that observed ‘acceptable’ behaviors are repeated in populations, even when those behaviors have only been reclassified as ‘acceptable’ over time.
Using the flawed logic of ‘disagrement is bigotry’ would allow any position to be classified as bigoted and indefensible. There can be no abject ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ position — any practice would be defensible in as much as it would be a product of choice. We recognize certain things as being wrong– the destruction of life, the seizure of property, the abuse of children among them– but without substantive views of right and wrong, no practice could be deemed bad.
Animals have no bearing or relation to human beings, though, save for the dominion over them held by Man. Man is Above animals, created in the likeness of the Creator God. Flawed arguement on your part, indeed.
All of those things listed are alike; all are Abomination. All have adverse affects on the health of society. All are deserving of one form of punishment or another.
As for Sunday School, it is quite apparent that I paid slightly better attention, especially to the plain language of John 3:16-19
‘For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have ever lasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved
JOHN 3:18-19: “He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already,because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”
Perhaps you overlooked the important verb there– BELIEVE. An active requirement of participation. Not an ‘Oh, I guess I was wrong, and I realize I’m a bad person; now I can get in.’. An act of belief in Christ. There is no ‘earning’ act, but there is a required act.
Perhaps you’d do well to acquaint yourself with the text you were so kind as to quote. As is plainly evident, so long as the same measurements are used for all, judgement is perfectly acceptable. That which is sinful in ourselves we cannot criticize in others without criticizing it in ourselves. All sins are worthy of condemnation, regardless of their origin (our own, or those of others) — and that one’s own trespass against a neighbor is no more egregious a sin than if one’s neighbor trespassed identically against us. This passage is a critique of hypocracy, not of practising all forms of judgement .
If you bother reading on in Matthew 7, you’ll come across verses 6, and 13-15 which require direct judgement by man. Here’s a refresher:
‘Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.’
There has to be a determination as to that which is holy and that which is unholy. Man is relied upon to do that, utilizing the revealed wisdom of God.
Or even
‘Enter ye in at a strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.’
Again, man is commanded to be vigilant and alert for deception– to discern, via judgement and the revealed wisdom of God, those whom bring false prophecy.
Or perhaps 1st Corinthians 6:2-3 (with allowance for multiple translations even included)
“Do you not know that the saints [the saved; followers of Christ] will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life?”
Again, later, from Paul’s letter to the Phillippians Ch 1, verses 9 &10.
“And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in judgement; that ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense until the day of Christ.”
Or John 7:24 “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (Christ’s affirmation of a tale of the proper application of justice in the time of Moses)
Or Luke 12:57: “Yea, and why not even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?”
[Christ directly asking people why they have not exercised their own judgement!]
The Bible is filled with these sorts of direct references to the exercising of judgement– New Testament as well as Old.
I certainly hope you find your way to Christ, and eternal salvation. It is the Truth for all mankind, not just a select few.
Firstly I know where Jesus is.. He has been hiding behind my couch for years.
Second, if you think that simply because in your world view animals are not related to man… and what? You did not argue the validity of my point that they engage in homo-sexual behavior… are you saying that God made animals abomination?
Third, for all of your quotes by the jesus guy, you failed to notice one very important thing… they all apply to you judging YOURSELF! They have nothing to do with judging others… Paul is a lunatic. Also you seem to have a VERY losse meaning of the word Saints found here. I was a follower of the Jesus at one point but I damn sure wasn’t a saint.
Lastly, I would never want to be part of a religion that teaches as much hatred for their fellow man as those that claim now to be Christian… maybe when they can learn to play well with others but not before then. Not to sound as though I am attacking you personally but, even in what you have been saying you have merely be preaching a message of intolerance and hate.
Normally I would say that doesn’t sound very Christian… but as time goes on I have to say that it sounds more and more like what I have come to expect from those calling themselves Christians.
Ok, Publius, let me get this straight:
You’re telling us that we should make it illegal to be homosexual and engage in homosexuality? That the government should punish people for engaging in homosexual behavior? And you’re equating homosexuality – what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom that doesn’t harm anyone else – to murder and child pornography?
Perhaps you should look to the rafter in your own eye?
so i did respond, but it is up a bit. html delayed.
Implementor: Absolutely.
You are by nature, a Libertarian. I am not. Government does have a proper scope — creating and maintaining public order via institutionalization of morality in the form of law, preserving tradition and religion. Whilst I may not view homosexuality as deserving of particularly harsh punishment, I think it is entirely acceptable that it be re-criminalized, as it has been for the first two hundred and twenty plus years of the Republic. Those Founding Fathers were on to something.
There’s no rafter in my own eye, as it were, regarding sexually inappropriate behavior and the law (of man or God).
Streetwraith:
A few things:
Your point regarding animals has no bearing on the discussion of homosexual behavior among mankind. Mankind is solely held to the standards of obedience to God’s law. Animals are effectively background scenery.
Most of the quotes (with the exception of John 7:24) refer to an external judgement. In each case, the judgement being exercised is internal only in that it is undertaken by the Christian— but it is a judgement of others and their conduct, and how it will affect one’s self.
Regarding Saints — if you look at my post, there are three different options listed because of three different mainstream translations — followers of Christ comes from the Greek, Saints from the Latin, and The Saved from Aramaic. I included all three so as to eliminate any possible accusation of source-type bias, and to leave that individual selection to the reader.
Now, for something resembling a point of brief agreement between us — too much of modern Christianity forgets the age old dictum of ‘Hate the sin, love the Sinner.’
Unfortunately, in throwing out the idea of hatred of Sin, Christians do their faith and those they endeavour to help no favors.
3.14 – Oddly enough, I did get your post’s mail-notification. I’ll wait until it shows here, so that everyone can see your response first — I wouldn’t try to pre-answer your questions before the reader can even see them proposed. Cheers.
It is up, but it is above us. I will repost it though so it doesn’t get mixed up or missed by others, but will space the html links that delayed the post to begin with
PREVIOUS POST:
Movies influence culture; that much has long been evident.
The extent to which movies influence culture is actually still up for debate. I can sit in a theatre and watch a movie showing the action-actor-of-the-day going through and killing any number of people as the anti-hero star of the movie. Strangely, I do not leave the theatre with that drive. I never have, even from earliest childhood.
In fact, I can’t think of anything that I have done simply because I saw it in a movie or on television or in a game or in a song. I may have been inspired to some creative expression by them, for example a character created for a roleplaying game, or an idea for a story or element in a story. I have not, however, patterned the core of my being on these things.
What you argue influences culture others argue is influence by culture. The figures that are used to say “movies influence culture†can be used to say that “culture influences movies†just the same. They measure trends, they do not measure the intent of people.
What you deem bigotry is the belief that homosexuality is a lesser, inappropriate, evil, and fundamentally counterproductive lifestyle.
News flash: It is. There is no reason to promote ‘tolerance’ of destructive, immoral behavior. We don’t tolerate child pornography, we don’t tolerate murder, we shouldn’t tolerate sodomy.
A couple of references for you:
w ww.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm
w ww.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah
You and I do not share the same interpretation of the bible. You have a more “conservative†view of what the bible says. I beleive, on the other hand, that the translations of the bible are not perfect. It could be that the interpretors had agendas. It simply could be, and I beleive to be just as likely if not more so, that they simply interpreted the bible in light of what they were taught it said. Does that mean that I find it to be inadequate for spiritual study? No. I beleive in God and Jesus, so obviously I beleive that the bible holds truth. However because I am reading the writings of men, I study it more carefully, compare passages and seek out different interpretations and translations as I am able to. Even when I was studying under fundamental teaching, I was seeking out original translations so that I could compare words and be sure of the meanings. That was always very important to me.
I am not convinced that the Bible holds the same view of homosexuality as Fundamentalists do.
The bible is very clear of how God feels about, for example, idolatry. Passages used to refer to homosexuality as a sin, on the other hand, lend themselves to interpretation. Examine the links to see what I mean.
At any rate, as a woman, according to the scriptures that are oft quoted to denounce homosexuality, I’m okay in my sexual preferences.
Which begs the question, if homosexuality were bad, wouldn’t there be something about lesbianism in the Old Testament?
Jesus certainly spent his time among the sinners– but he never let them forget that what they were doing was Sin, and that the price of redemption was belief — a belief founded on the repudiation of sinful life, and a request for salvation undeserved.
Jesus also never belittled them. He never made them feel like they were horrible people or less than human or pathetic or hated or undeserving of God’s kingdom. The religious leaders of Jesus’ time did that. Remember that Jesus said he came for the sinners. Had the religious leaders of that time been merciful towards the sinners and treated them the way Jesus did, do you think Jesus would have chosen THAT time to be there? Didn’t he state in several places that those people were the ones that he came for?
The way you speak of homosexuals, the way that fundamentalists do, is the same way that the religious leaders of Jesus’ day spoke of sinners and treated them. And you (including the fundie religioso leaders in this) would with-hold Jesus from them. You place restrictions of salvation. You make ritual and step-by-step of something that is supposed to be a gift given freely. I have to echo street on this. If the request must be made, then a requirement is put on the gift. The point of a gift is that you don’t ask for it. You simply accept that the gift is there and take it.
The people that Jesus sat with and blessed, they are never referred to as former-whatever-sin-they-were-doing. Have you ever noticed that? It never escaped my notice. It was one of the many things that led me to question the fundamentalist interpretation of the bible.
On another note:
Publius, in response to you in response to Implementor.
I trust, then, that you do not agree with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of collected Ammendments that the Constitution guarantees us our right to privacy?
The government is to make laws for the sake of the nation and society, this I agree with.
I do not, agree, however, that the government necessarily HAS to delve into my private life in order to safeguard society or the nation as a whole.
More to the point, the government does not have to delve into my bedroom in order to safeguard others.
I am bi-sexual.
I have never raped a man.
I have never raped a woman.
I have never coerced a man into having sex with me.
I have never coerced a woman into having sex with me.
When flirting, if a man is uncomfortable, I stop.
When flirting, if a woman is uncomfortable, I stop.
I like-a the woman. I like-a the woman a lot. I think that the female form is extremely beautiful. Beyond that, there is a certain type of intimacy one can have with a woman that one can not have with a man. It isn’t anything bad about men or my husband. There is an intimacy that can be had with a man that can not be had with a woman. It is just the way of it in my personal experience.
I accept that people may find my sexual appetites to be depraved. What another person thinks of my sexuality is not my problem, so long as they do not try to hinder me or persecute me for my sexuality. To make my personal intimate expressions with another consenting, non-coerced, non-drugged, not deceived adult illegal is to threaten me with prosecution.
My being bisexual does not make me a pedofile. I find the idea of taking advantage of a child or of hurting a child like that to be horrific and revolting. In part because it is, in part from being once in the role of victim.
So, if I do not rape, if I do not coerce, if I do not harrass, if I do not lay out in the middle of the town square with a woman (so to speak), if I do not drug women to take them home and do with them as I will, if I do not threaten women into having sex with me, if I do not film them without thier knowledge and post it on the net, sell it as a movie, or sell the stills to magazines, if I do not sexual abuse children, then please, please, please, please, please, please, please tell me where what I do in privacy has any harm on society or the nation?
And please don’t give me the “well allowing that allows for…” shiat either. I am as tired and bored with gate-way sins as I am with gate-way drugs and gate-way computers and AOL (get it, gate-way internet programs?). Other than the fact that I like-a the woman, I am actually very moral. I don’t steal. I don’t kill people. I don’t hurt them (well, I do horse around a little rough with the hubby…no not in an over-share kind of way). I don’t lie about people. I do admit that I gossip sometimes, but I don’t plan my day around the gossip. I can be a little catty sometimes, and I do have a nasty temper if someone crosses me. I don’t hit my child. I don’t shake her dumb. I don’t deprive her of food or withhold toys simply to watch her squirm (a short few-minute game of keepaway doesn’t hurt and is a good way to teach an infant to track objects and reach for things). I don’t seek to hurt people. I try to be honest in how I deal with people. Yes, I have told a lie or three in my time and I’ve done things that I have regretted from time to time. But I never intend to hurt anyone. I obey traffic laws for the most part. I even let people over sometimes. I don’t give money to the guys on the street, but I have given them breakfast before. I don’t pull out money when I am walking downtown and I don’t give something intending to help if I don’t know for sure that it is going to help. I don’t donate to the red-cross, but then again we’re both college students raising a child. Most days, I feel like we’re in need of charity.
My point is, though I have a sexual tendency with consenting adults that some people find at best questionable, I am a good person. I try to live my life by simple and good measure. I seek what is best for those around me, and sometimes I think about myself too. I have a moral code designed around the idea that you don’t do harm to other people, and will be raising my daughter with that moral code because I feel that is how you should be with people as much as possible.
So, no, being bisexual does not invite “further depravity” into my community.
So where is the harm?
Ok, Publius. If you’re so happy to see the “laws” of the bible enshrined in our legal system, how about the one forbidding fornication? Have you ever had sex with a woman outside of marriage? If so, you’ve broken the “God’s Law” as put forth in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, aka, the Bible. And fornication is just as much of a sin, if not moreso, than homosexuality.
So, Publius, should we be rounding people up in this country for having sex, heterosexual sex at that, outside of marriage? Would you violate that law, and have you committed that sin?
Let’s do this in parts. We’ll start with first post by Pi.
We certainly do have very different views on Biblical interpretation. I’ve reviewed the websites you’ve mentioned.
While Homosexuality lacks a Ten Commandments Standing like Idolatry, it is peppered throughout the bible as Abomination — it matters not if the origin point is a Greek translation, a Latin translation, an English translation, or an Aramaic version.
Depending on which translation you accept, Lesbianism is usually covered as part of Lev 18:22. For New Testament preferences, see Romans 1:24-27.
It depends on how you take the term ‘belittling’ — Christ was quite specific that their acts were sinful, wrong, vile, and evil. Regarding time- Christ did not appear for merely the people of his time, but for peoples of all times, as He repeatedly stated.
There is no witholding of Christ involved, Pi. The sinner can indeed become saved, without meeting any standard save that of Christ, for Salvation. I certainly don’t wish to keep them from God (which I view as their only reliable hope for a cure) — I welcome all to partake in the Word of God, but to understand that it is there for them to obey, to conform to, to use to repudiate weakness and failing. Christianity isn’t fluffy; its a clear lens, through which to see the world– and it is a powerful mirror to see our own failings which we are obligated to attempt to correct.
Pi post 2:
Yes, I reject the notion of the existance of a Right to Privacy. The closest the Constitution comes is the recognition of the sanctity of Private property; 4th amendment’s description of security in person, property, houses, papers, and effects.
What you (and any of us, by deign of equal treatment before law) do in private has public consequences. It does invite depravity into your community (as do things like spousal abuse- I won’t excuse another private action simply because its private)– it teaches acceptance of immorality as acceptable, so long as it is done out of sight.
So long as privately practicing homosexuals don’t attempt to engage in child-rearing, its not as potentially damaging to youth as it could otherwise be. Whilst there are homosexual pedophiles, certainly not all are nor are likely a majority thereof.
Likewise, it desensitizes culture to the legitimate roles of sex and marriage — and particularly the family, the underpinning of civilization.
You may not view it as harmful, but a great many of us do (and have for some time, looking at the history of American legislatures, citizen plebecites, and common law), and reject utterly the idea that it causes no harm. Laws have been and are created to protect and nurture certain institutions and practices that are fundamentally necessary to a society’s perpetuation.
And Lastly: Implementor.
Certainly. Yep. I broke that law. I have thusly sinned. I’m not opposed to my being retroactively punished for it, either. I’m perfectly fine with criminalizing such behavior, and making the punishment retroactive.
[Though there would likely be unwanted appeals filed on my behalf over ex post facto status by the ACLU]
I was wrong to do what I did, I admit it, and accept it. I wouldn’t violate it now; my own shortcomings do not excuse future shortcomings in myself or others.
Its consistency that counts.
Ok, then let’s plow further into the Bible.
What about slavery? God obviously doesn’t see anything wrong with it, Paul even insisted that Onesimus return to his master when Onesimus tried to escape bondage. Who are we to disallow an institution that God approves?
What about our financial system? It’s built upon a system of interest-bearing loans, and charging interest on a loan is something that God obviously disapproves of, this is documented in many scriptures. Would you support laws that criminalize the charging of interest? Even though this would completely destroy our economy?
Publius-
Firstly, you seem very content in the fact that you broke the “law” of fornication… so you should be stoned. Have you broken any others such as Masterbation, for which by the way, God struck the offender dead? Have you ever touched a woman that was on her period and by so doing become unclean and eaten or sat on furniture or touched anything without going through the ritual cleansing as proscribed within your book? If so, you should be stoned to death yet again, because this causes others around you to become unclean through no fault of their own and they pay a price for you sin as well. Did you ever look at a woman with lust in your heart? If you did then you have commited a sin against God.
The bible is A) guide lines because no one can do all of it, B) a cute story, and C) full of shit most of the time. For every passage you can find in a bible to “prove” your point I will find 10 that refute it. (Yes I am that good, I used to be a JW so I know my bible better than your average Mormon)
Now, let me tell you a short story. This is the story of that Jehu guy… or Jesus if you prefer. When he came here the first time, he denounced the Sadducees and Pharisees for creating too many laws and over burdening the people. Now do you know what he said were the two most important laws for dealing with God? 1) Love God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and body and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. On these two things all of the law hinges.
For everyone in general-
What I find funny is that Fundimentalist Christians have not yet figured out that they are the new Sadducees and Pharisees. They annouce more and more “deep meanings” within the bible every day.
I can’t wait for Jesus to show up again so he can denounce the new group just a much as he did the old one. I wonder if his fate would really be any different either.
Implementor: This is exactly where debate about law and politics belongs — in the sphere of moral and religious application.
Slavery, even in the historicl biblical context had severe limitations. Whilst I respect the law of the land and the relevant constitutional compromise of the 13th Amendment, I don’t feel that all forms of slavery were contrary to the establishment of the state at its origin. A hundred years of history and one very bloody civil war bear out that much– but note that the Constitution itself had to be altered, requiring immense political will and an overwhelming wilingness to use force were required to end Slavery.
Nowhere in the Bible, though, was it expressly forbade to forbid the practice. Just that the practice was not forbidden by God. This is the difference between a ban on slavery and a ban on homosexual behavior.
One is expressly forbidden; the other is a volountary assuption of a standard that isn’t given as an absolute right or wrong within the Bible. By the biblical standard, Slavery is a practice; homosexuality an Abomination. Slavery is highly regulated in its practices, even when allowed though no judgement is made as to its correctness [it can be argued as being reasonably tacictly condoned]; however, homosexuality is universally immoral.
My belief procedes from a basic premise that there is Fundamental Law– Natural Law, given to man by God. Those laws are not to be contravened. Any other law must respect those laws. So long as they are not contrary to the fundamental principles, societies may adopt any affirmative or negative law. This would include bans upon slavery.
The New Testament is silent on the topic of usury, largely. Familiarize yourself with the two passages regarding usury (Luke 19:11-26 and Matthew 25:14-29) that actually do appear in the NT, and you’ll find neither approval nor condemnation [both accounts are retellings of similar parables, and actually encourage people to put their talents to work -- and gives an opaque albeit not explicit approval of interest bearing practices].
Personally, I’m certianly in favor of usury laws as they exist, using the justification of Christ’s tacit approval of some interest bearing banking, but rejecting the idea that interest rates should not be goverened in relation to their religious appropriateness.
Okay.
1. What Translation of Leviticus 18:22 includes Lesbianism? There are interpretations that include it. The original Hebrew text makes no mention of intercourse between women, so English translations denouncing homosexuality period are actually interpretations not translations
2. Abomination. Funny you should mention that word. I have what I affectionately called The Big Red Book of Bible, more commonly known as the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. It is a great book that will tell you every occurance of every word in the bible. I found it in my fundie-learning days.
Now, the Strong’s includes a dictionary of Hebrew/Chaldee for the Old Testament and Greek for the New. For our purposes here, we are sticking with the Old because that is where God’s law was established. If we start discussing Paul’s additions to it, this discussion will never end, and probably definately not well.
Now, there are, I estimate because I won’t count them all, well over 100 uses of Abomination in some form or other in the Old Testament. These uses either describe anger, finding something abominable, or describe something as being an abomination. Nearly all of these mentions refer to idolatry in the H/C writings. I did also find one that talks about abomination in reguards to ceremonial uncleanliness. The only reference that talks about abomination in relation to morality is in the context of the War with the Philistines in 1 Samuel.
So, I think that saying that Abomination refers to homosexuality in the Old Testament is kind of stretching it just a little bit.
3. Okay. Comparison time again.
Spousal Abuse (I will speak in terms of the man as the abuser): Man beats wife. Wife is terrified of man and does nothing for fear. Man continues to beat wife. Is wife consenting, or is she terrified into submitting?
Consentual Homosexual Activiity (I will speak in terms of man meets man): Man meets man. Man is attracted to man. Other man is attracted to first man. Two men go home together and homolarity ensues. Both are adults. Neither is threatening the other. They are in private and no one else is witnessing thier act. Is anyone here being terrified into consenting?
You understand that there is a HUGE difference here between SPOUSAL ABUSE and homosexuality, right? One causes physical/mental/emotional harm to another in order to assert dominance over them. The other is an expression of attraction and emotion. You do get the difference, right?
4. What YOU find immoral. That is the problem with legilating about things like Homosexuality or Fornication or Masturbation and a host of other activities that don’t actually hurt others, are open to interpretation, and vary depending on your religion, or if you even HAVE a religion. When Fundies legislate such moralities, they are really legislating their religion, imposing it onto someone else.
There are things more un-Christ-like, but not many.
Streetwraith: I’m certainly content in my knowledge that I have sinned, and will pay for those sins. You’ll be extremely hard pressed to show a more thorough knowledge of the Bible, though.
Stoning, as you mention, was the Old Covenant prescription for such behavior; had I lived under the Old Covenant, I surely would have deserved such punishment.
As a Christian, bound by the New Testament and Christ, I’m beholden to His New Covenant. (Romans 7:1-6, 2 Corinthians 3:6-11, Galatians chapters 3-5, Hebrews 7-10]. This removes the specific punishments of the Old Covenant (though it does not make the acts any less Sinful– the acts remain as wrong, as horrible, as inappropriate, and as worthy of condemnation) — but it remains silent on what the appropriate punishment should now be– not that there shouldn’t be punishment.
The Bible isn’t as flexible as people want it to be– the assertion that ‘I can find 10 contradictions for any position you can take’ simply isn’t consistent with fact. Its been demonstrated time and again. I’ll do it now. Find me an approval of homosexuality in the Bible. Please! It’d end this conversation quickly! You can’t, because its not there.
What I will find particularly sad (and because I am a mere sinful man, funny) will be the fufillment of Revelations 3:16
“So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.”
Pi again:
As for the first: depending on what version of Hebrew one uses as a starting point; example: using a historical contextual Ancient Hebrew, the Living Bible has the meaning of the Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women.
They render the first part of this verse as: “Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden.” Utilizing the scholastic Hebrew available to the Courts of King James, you get the KJV.
[I'll note that I usually am suspicious of anything that sugests a 'living' document]
2. Something somewhere about: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Oh yeah. Leviticus 18:22.
There would be your requested Old Testament account of the act as Abomination. The literal text is by no means ’stretching it’.
3. Nope. Both are sinful and wrong. Both aught to be repudiated and punishable by law.
4. Law is morality — or in the case of modern America, legislated, (now more often ajudicated) mandated immorality. The rejection of religious and moral principle has made the law a wasteland, and endangers the continuation of Civilization. America is, and always has been a Christian civilization– and many basic precepts of this have been encoded into our law over the centuries. People on the Left seem to be unable to understand why the Right is so fervent in its positions. The Right defends Absolute Truths as it understands them; the Left seems to often support an utter rejection of Absolute Truth. The Left refuses to budge because it might impair their individuality. The Right will not budge for it will imperil their soul.
Anyways, answering three respondants at a time is a bit of heavy writing and arguing
America is not, and has never been, a “Christian nation”. Many of it’s Founding Fathers weren’t Christians, and others who claimed to be Christians rejected the Bible and Christianity as any basis for law in the United States. Jefferson went so far as to rewrite the Bible, taking out all the passages he found objectionable – something no one who claims to be a “Christian” would presume to do today. But most notable, John Adams even signed a treaty absolutely stating that the U.S. government is not founded on Christianity.
“The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” – The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams, Founding Father and 2nd President of the United States.
Here are other quotes which show the attitudes of the Founding Fathers toward Christianity, religion, and the Bible:
“Christianity…(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. …Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.” – Thomas Jefferson
“The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” – John Adams
“Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to ‘God’ to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator’s name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).” – Thomas Paine
“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.” – Thomas Paine
“What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.” – James Madison, primary writer of the U.S. Constitution
“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” – James Madison
Madison also went so far as to reject State-supported Chaplains in Congress and to reject the exemption of churches from taxation.
Publius, the facts are – most of those who founded this country didn’t want to see Biblical laws and principles become the U.S. law. They enshrined this in the 1st Amendment, and it was Thomas Jefferson himself who came up with the idea of a “wall of separation” between Church and State. In many cases, as shown by their actions and the above quotes, the faith of the Founding Fathers had little to do with Christianity or the Bible – some actively denouncing Christianity and the Bible itself!
Who should we believe on the issue of whether the laws of the United States of America are or should be based upon the Bible – you, or the Founding Fathers themselves?
Implementor: Nice selectivity of quotes from three sources who were indeed opposed to Christianity as a basis of American government, mixed with selective quotation from Adams.
Paine was a dedicated atheist and pampletier, and was quite influential during the Revolutionary era — but as the historical record shows, he was not accepted nor embraced, beyond the publication of the first edition of The Rights of Man. Paine died alone, rejected by his countrymen as godless and amoral, and does not enjoy the status of your other luminaries of being an integral part of the founding of the Republic itself. A contributor without a doubt, but not a contemporary of a Washington, an Adams, or a Jefferson.
Adams did indeed sign a treaty (prepared and ratified by Congress), and make the statement attributed — mind you, the statement was lifted from the context of Adam’s critique of French Catholic attempts to attach themselves to Napoleon. Adam’s critique was of the French church and its attempts to placate the Emporer, and the manipulation of the Church by Napoleon. In fact, most of Adams ‘anti-religious’ statements were either made during the period of the French Revolution, or in later years, in private letters with Benjamin Rush and Thomas Jefferson regarding the French Revolution.
Let’s look at the fully historical Adams, though. Surely these two statements have some weight — what else did Adams say — and do– about religion, God, and Government?
There were literally hundreds of public references to God made by Adams – and he signed over 200 acts of Congress that mentioned Almighty God in some context, several mentioning the derivation of rights, and the granted legal authority of federal law, by extension from God . Where did Adams turn in times of trouble?
The Bible. What did Adams do when the nation faced the prospect of war? Called for a national day of prayer. What did Adams entire life show? A committment to a society where religion was protected from the avarice of the state — not a state protected from the grace of God.
Jefferson? Certainly a committed Deist. I welcome you, though, to go to the Jefferson Memorial. Take a long look around, before going downstairs to the modern exhibit. Read the walls, look up at the rotunda. This self-same Jefferson that is cited as the critic has his tomb covered in references to Almighty God.
How about his ‘Wall of Seperation’? A product of a private letter to the Danbury, CT Baptists. Jefferson was *so* committed to secularism, he almost didn’t go to church in the Congressional chambers two days later. He was *so* committed to secularism, he almost stopped giving special permission for the use of the US Treasury for a Church. Jefferson admittedly had more (and better documented) problems with religion than any other Founder, but he was hardly secularist.
There has been a good deal said and written about Jefferson, from both sides.
Madision was perhaps the most consistent critic of the role of religion in the early Republic. His policies were indeed forefrunners of the modern agnostic state– his statements were many, and usually more critical of the role of religion in the state than his contemporaries.
Look, though, at their documents [all 3 presidents, and all other presidents present at the Founding], at the laws of the States and Federal Government, at. Read their collective writings, and examine the full historical record. Look at all of the Founders, rather than partial readings of a small handful [Franklin can ususually be fairly presented as a secularist, for example. It strengthens the secularist arguement to include him.]
The weight of historical evidence isn’t just clear. It’s overwhelming.
State governments perpetuated state churches until the turn of the 20th Century. 11 of the original 13 colonies had the requirement of religious qualification for office holding. The law was, in some places, quite literally Biblical, with state legislatures passing laws (including early prohibitions on usury) lifted straight from the Old Testament.
After hundreds of years of historical rsearch, the Anti-Christian Left can cite and document fewer than 1,200 examples of secularist thought expressed from the attendees of the Constitutional Convention, the Articles of Confederation, and the Declaration of Independence — even when removing partial quotes from context.
The simple written law of the states by 1805 (the heyday of all of your supposed secularist) contained more direct references to religion in 10 circumstances (Pennsylvania, Deleware, and Rhode Island being the exceptions) than the entire life works of the Founding Fathers. Federal law continaed more references to Almighty God than the combined total of secular statements.
How about the earliest important legislation of the Republic?
” And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected: to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory:
Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
Some obtuse academic writing? The Northwest Ordinance actually.
From the Mayflower Compact to the centenial celebration, America’s republican government has been predicated upon the understanding that all religion is desirable, but that Judeo-Christian principles are the standard for government and law. Its encoded in our history, in our monuments, in our law.
What say the Founders in matters of law, constitutions, state charters, and in
I will admit that I can not find any scriptures on the side of homosexuality… however, when I looked up homosexual in the back of the bible do you know what I found? NOTHING! So the people that decided to print this KJV decided that homosexualtiy was not important enough to mention.
Oh and here is something I challenge you to do. Since you do not feel you are under the old covenant (only said by Paul, BTW) I challenge you to find for me anything in the TEACHINGS of the JESUS ( Not Paul, or Timothy, or John, or Jude), the first four gospels, where jesus even mentions gay people.
Oh, Levi 18:22 does infact state that it is “abomination” within the KJV. ONly one version of the bible to be sure and a really bad translation at that. However, you did not read the next verse. Levi 18:23, “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.” Funny that an act that is consentual is “abomination” and the act of raping a dog is “confusion”.
Now here is the last thing that I am going to say on this because it has been proven time and again that you are not listening to anything that I have said and are simply repeating “gays are bad, m-kay”. When you said earlier that you had no rafter, you were quite mistaken. You have commited all of the afore mentioned sins. That qualifies as a rafter. I am not gay, but I also understand that I have lead a very, very sinful life. I am not going to judge them when I can not manage to keep myself sinless.
You seem to be happy to toss your stones. The reason that there is no punishment of that nature within the Christian Cult is because Christ said not to. He said, “Let he that is without sin cast the first stone.” You have been hucking them for the last three days.
I am now going to say nothing more on this because, thus far it has simply fallen on those without ears to hear.
I like the parts of the Torah where G-d forbids the eating of shrimp and the wearing of mixed-fiber clothing.
In fact, after reading this thread, I made it a point to break both of those laws last night at dinner.
My sister used to have a wonderful button on her backpack: “He’s your god, they’re your rules, YOU burn in hell.”
Publius, you’ve weaved and dodged, but you’ve missed the essential point that I was making: While the Founders didn’t find it necessary to divorce any reference to God from government, they most certainly found it necessary to divorce religion and the Bible from lawmaking in the United States. Yes, you’re right, laws are based on morality, but the morality that the Founding Fathers based the highest laws of this country upon wasn’t Christian. The most influential people having to do with the founding of this country denounced the Christian religion, and specifically stated that it and the Bible had no place in the making of laws. That WAS the original intent of the Founders, to make the laws of the United States as “religion neutral” as possible, and to make the U.S. a State where everyone could worship as they saw fit, but where no religion would be the basis for law.
Many others, particularly in the States, have tried to incorporate religion into our government over the years. However, we’ve wisely struck down most of this legislation as not in keeping with the highest law of our land, the U.S. Constitution.
Publius, you would see the U.S. turned into the Christian equivalent of a Sharia state like Iran, where religious law is the highest law of the land. I’m sorry, our laws prevent that kind of thing from happening. Your values contrast highly with the guarantee of freedom this country is based upon – you condone slavery, you would institute laws that would imprison people for sexual contact of any kind outside of what you find appropriate – the Islamic States under Sharia law do the same thing, in Saudi Arabia, it’s called the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. It’s members are greatly feared in that country, and roam the streets enforcing dress codes, enforcing strict separation of women and men, and forcing people to pray on time. You’d have this country degenerate into that?
All I have to say is that I’m glad our nation, from it’s foundation, has rejected your and others attempts to turn it into a theocracy, and I’m glad the 2nd Amendment protects my right to keep and bear arms, because I would most certainly use them to prevent those like you from instituting your sick and twisted beliefs on others.
Publius:
Homosexuality is an abomination.
If you are refering to Leveticus, and we both know you are, then:
Eating shellfish is an “abomination”.
Do you eat shrimp?
Eating meat with the curdled milk of its mother is an “abomination”.
Do you eat cheeseburgers?
Under Leviticus, you are not supposed to shave.
Do you have a beard?
According to Leviticus all the material in your clothing must be the same weave.
So I supppose you wear 100% cotton?
After all mix poly or rayon or anything else together and its… AN ABOMINATION !
And of course I suppose you are a 7th Day Adventist, because after all you must keep the Sabbath…
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movies/box_office.php
Just want to settle one part of this. In my job I work very closely with exhibitors, my company provides hardware and software for movie theatres across the country. Consequently I am very interested in the performance of various features because the better that the movie exhibitor business does the better my company does.
That being said. Brokeback Mountain has been one of the more profitable movies for exhibitors to show, on its fifth week it averaged $10,300 in revenue per screen it was shown on. It has not bombed, it is actually a suprising success.
Now… Aeon Flux… which averaged on its fourth week $500 in revenue per screen… it bombed.
I’ve spent the last bit re-reading through a lot of this as I admit I’ve been bad about reading anything other than the comments to my own column of late. And, honestly, a lot of what I’ve seen here disappoints me on a number of levels.
There are several issues on which there is no agreement to be reached from any amount of discussion. Religion and its application is one of those, which is the basis of much of this discussion.
The simple fact is that the First Amendment to the Constitution is there to ensure that at no point will religion become enshrined by the power of the Federal Government. No matter what Fundamentalists in this country want, it’s not going to happen.
Will, you’re welcome to your opinion that homosexuality is wrong. It’s part of your religion and I can accept that. I do think, however, that you went far out of line in lumping them in the same category with murder and pedaphelia. That was a low blow, and I’m quite sure you were aware of the flash point it would be when you used it. You tossed chum in the waters and watched the sharks rip into it. Yes, there are the general comments that all sins are alike in God’s eyes, but all sins are not alike in Man’s eyes. Granted, I’m sure that is a failing in Man in your eyes.
There is also the adage used by many Christians of ‘Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner.’ Every step I’ve seen taken by you on this issue tramples that adage in the mud. In your draconian hold to Biblical Law, you come across as unwilling to appreciate the good in a person simply because they are doing something you find abominable.
In the end, the United States is a country of Secular Law, not Religious Law–no matter how much the Christian Coalition and others might wish it to be so (and you don’t know how much amusement it brings me to see Ralph Reed showing up as just as corrupt as anyone else). You personally believe that Homosexuality is a Bad Thing(tm). Other people obviously don’t (and I’m among those).
My suggestion? Drop this argument altogether on both sides. The escalation is making many people look like idiots, to a greater or lesser degree (with notable exceptions [3 that I can think of off hand]).
Dialogue and debate is a good thing. The existence of it is something that makes this country great. The pointing of the finger of DOOM with a pronouncement of ‘YOU’RE WRONG AND EVIL’ is a divisive action and something I think we need far less of if this country is actually going to move forward.
Religion and Government: Two great tastes that absolutely, positively do not taste great together.
Ok, this is an obvious argument. The Bible says we should stone homosexuals, so thats the end of it. Oh, and children who are belligerent. And witches. And Im sick and tired of menstruating women going to church. Don’t they know they’re unclean? When is America going to stop listening to these blowhard, Will and Grace loving liberals and start listening to words written 2000 years ago in a desert by people (ahem.. i mean God) and re-intrepreted throughout the Dark Ages… (ahem… I mean.. Divinely edited)
Face it, America. Jesus hates homosexuals, liberals, people against the Iraq war, Gay movies about cowboys, women, and North Koreans. Anyone who thinks otherwise obviously cannot read.
And you know what? I hate them homos too. Their impeccable knack for interior decorating, their bars with those damn Madonna and J-Lo videos… they are CORRUPTING our culture. Pretty soon our children will be wearing tight jeans and wearing shirts that say “Too Cute For You”
Stone em, I say. Biblical Justice. Its what God would want. But I wonder, do we just stone the actors, or the director/producer as well? And what about the Key Grip? Im sure he’s a homo-sympathizer. The Best Boy is definetly getting stoned. But Im unsure of the Casting Director.
Let me know