Rise of $3 Dollars: American Taliban Update

An upcoming change in my life will hopefully prompt me to revive my blogging career. More on that in a few days... for now, this article was enough to get me to post an entry.

Via Joe.MyGod.:

American Family Association radio host Bryan Fischer has called for sending homosexuals to prison for forced reparative
therapy, a move he says is sanctioned by the Bible.

[Mr. Fischer clarifies:] It might be worth noting that what I actually
suggested is that we impose the same sanctions on those who engage in homosexual
behavior as we do on those who engage in intravenous drug abuse, since both pose
the same kind of risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. I'd be curious to know what you
think should be done with IV drug abusers, because whatever it is, I think the
same response should be made to those who engage in homosexual
behavior.

If you believe that what drug abusers need is to go into an
effective detox program, then we should likewise put active homosexuals through
an effective reparative therapy program.

Mr. Fischer then goes on to quote one of our favorite of the "clobber passages", (passages that are frequently brought up to dismiss non-heterosexuals as deviant, corrupt, immoral, or less than) 1 Timothy 1: 8-11. Mr. Fischer's Bible translates the unlawful as being among murders, liars, profaners, enslavers, people who hit their parents, and "men who practice homosexuality."

We'll skip for now how the Bible NEVER addresses female same-sex activity (not even in Romans) and look briefly at how the word homosexual could possibly show up in the Bible. The term homosexual, was created in Germany around the mid to late 1860's and became more widely known through Nazi literature and the rise of psychoanalysis (not to conflate the two).

Daniel Helminiak in What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality concludes that the two words that Paul uses are completely debatable. One term is very unclear and the other doesn't refer to "homogenitality" but rather "soft" or "effeminate" and then only in the sense that effeminacy was opposite to a virtuous man (so it is rooted in negative concepts about women, not same sex behavior). The other fairly unknown and uniique term likely refers to sexual perversion, prostitution, pederasty or sexual abuse.

The best argument against this term being applicable today is we we would view as modern forms of homosexual expression were not forms Paul (or anyone of that day) would know about - which is not, IMO and as an aside, a basis to make a case for the politically expedient but potentially dangerous "hey we're just like you but gay" argument.

One of my other favorite arguments against Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is that while the Bible may have injunctions against us, the Bible teaches a lot of things that we do not endorse in modern Western society.

All of that to say this: 1) these kinds of arguments make little if ANY headway against members of the American Taliban /Religious Right and 2) the great thing is that, so far, our country's laws are not based on any religious text, so in terms of who has what rights or who gets sent to jail, what does it matter what the Bible or Koran, or Talmud or any similar religious work (Dianetics?) say?

To answer my own rhetorical question, what matters of course is that there is at least a percentage or concentration of individuals who think our laws should be based on their particular interpretation of their (usually the Bible) religious work and there are politicians who either agree with that viewpoint or are willing to pander to it for votes. The religious right should not be ignored or trivialized. It is still a movement with some degree of power and influence, although that seems to be waning. However, the calls to action and voice of the leaders of the religious right has become more strident and intolerant than ever - hopefully because they see their power diminishing - but things can get much worse before they get better. It will still be a while until these fascists are fully and completely disregarded as the hate mongers they are.

Happy Easter

Today, on the perhaps the most meaningful day of the Christian faith, the day representing the hope and salvation of ALL people, I'd like to point to what is certainly to be a rising surge of fundamentalist Christian lies and misinformation about and hate towards gays and lesbians. With the decision in Iowa, the passing of marriage in Vermont for same-sex couples, and DC's recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states, rabidly anti-gay sentiment has already started and will undoubtably increase towards an unbearable cacaphony of venomous noise.

It's already started with NOM's (National Organization for Marriage) much and rightly ridiculed new, fear-mongering ad of lies

Here is a brief but good response to the ad


Here is a slightly longer, better response to the ad


Mark Morford's scathing (and right on) review of the ad: Fear the Rainbow (SF Gate article)

Thom Hartmann takes on Brian Brian of NOM (video)

And a funny take on the dumb ad


Perhaps one of my favorite questions for fear-mongering fundies is this: Which type of traditional marriage are you supporting?
The Eight Types of Marriages / Families Found in the Bible
Bible Passages Against Marriage

By the way, the Bible doesn't address same-sex marriage. Not saying something about a topic isn't the same as condemning it. Go enroll in a basic logic course.
The Bible and Same-Sex Marriage

And while we're on it, let's see what the Bible says about the Gays in general. Love Mel White's point at the end that, hey, America isn't a theocracy....yet. So religious arguments against civil marriages need to just go away.
What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say About Homosexuality

When will so many Conservative Christians understand that God isn't as small and fearful as they are?

Your Easter Sunday Sermon

Here's what Dr. King got out of the Sermon on the Mount. On Nov 17, 1957, in MOntgomery's Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, he concluded the learned discourse that came to be known as the "loving your enemies" sermon this way: "So this morning, as I look into your eyes and into the eyes of all of my brothers in Alabama and all over America and over the world, I say to you: 'I love you. I would rather die than hate you.'"

Go ahead and re-read that. That is hands down the most beautiful, strange, impossible, but most of all radical thing a human being can say. And it comes from reading the most beautiful, strange, impossible, but most of all radical civics lesson ever taught, when Jesus of Nazareth went to a hill in Galilee and told his disciples, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you."

Whoever wins the presidential election this year will be a Christian. (Unless of course it's that one guy who is a member of a Muslim sleeper cell. Just when you think the electorcal process couldn't get any more stupid....) So the rest of us might as well suck it up and see if we can pick the Christian who is, if incapable of loving his or her enemies, the one who seems least likely to drum up a bunch of extra, new enemies to hate.

-- Your most unlikely minister, Sarah Vowell in The New York Times, January 21, 2008

That's What We Call Mannahs, Mr. Savage...

Everyone was very nice about me roasting on a spit in hell for
all eternity."

"They're really friendly about you roasting in hell."

--Dan Savage on histrip to South Carolina

Would you rather we be rude about it, Sir?

Seriously, the "cognitive dissonance" Savage and Mahr bring up about the South is an interesting topic, perhaps to be explored later on this blog.

I'm also very intrigued by Savage's observation on his trip on how many Huckabee supporters now see Dubya as a bad Christian because he's not a good president. Clearly, you can't be a good Christian and ruin the country. So, we now need change: a good Christian (Huckabee) in the White House. Savage's retort on this perspective is classic.

Dan Savage on Bill Mahr (found via Joe.My.God.)

Modern Millstones

Luke 17 : 1-2
Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Matthew 18: 6
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea

I believe that many modern leaders of the religious right / Christian evangelical movement would be better off, for their own sake, with millstones around their neck. Although Jesus is referring to children in these versus, I believe it is easy enough to extrapolate that he probably also meant anyone who is a child of God. So many modern Christian leaders have led from their pulpits such an unrivaled persecution of gays and lesbians, driving them from the church and the love of God that they will be judged harshly for their crimes.

What is hard for me to understand is how they rationalize their hatred and seeming hold on the truth. The Bible offers much advice, some of it seemingly contradictory. How so then can these people be so sure that it is their interpretation that is the right one? Of course this kind of irrationality is nothing new; it is as old as time.

However, Biblical literalism is fairly new. The literal interpretation of the Bible is a 20th century invention and obviously creates many problems. As "Steve Falkenberg, Ph. D, professor of religious psychology at Eastern Kentucky University, says, 'I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist.' 'Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and setting on pillars and cannot move (1 Chr 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26)...'" (from Wikipedia entry on "Biblical literalism")

Ultimately, I am arguing for what Professor Ehrmen, Biblical scholar and author, calls for in his radio interview (below), a tolerance for diversity and difference in interpretation. And furthermore, a rational and studied understanding of what the text actually says in opposition to the anti-intellectual approach of literal misunderstanding. Literalism has done nothing but hurt the church and hurt so many others, most recently and particularly gays and lesbians.

For the Bible Tells Me So movie website - an excellent documentary dealing with Christianity and homosexuality (and what the Bible really says about it), including "ex-gay" therapies and following the stories of several families

Diane Rehm interviews Bart Ehrmen, author of Misquoting Jesus (audio)
This interview is an excellent discussion of how the Bible was constructed and even touches on briefly scriptual meaning relative to women in the church and passages on homosexuality.

On the Heresy of Literalism (article)

An evangelical minister discusses the hypocricy of modern evangelicals (Christianity Today, 2005)

Friends of God HBO documentary on the modern evangelical movement

Encyclopedia Britannica entry on modern Christian fundamentalism

Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? Revised and Updated: A Positive Christian Response

What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality