My guest blogger today is Wayne Anderson. Wayne Wayne Wayne
Our Religion of Hate
Copyright 2008
by: Wayne R. Anderson
Being without religion means that I
am not obligated to hate anyone. Various religious cults, however, manage to
energize and attract adherents by appealing to the need in many people to hate
others. Those cultists feel they are better than others; they figure that
whatever they do is good compared to others who are evil. So, my not having any
religion allows adherents of cults to conclude that they are better than I am,
just for that reason alone. I am branded an atheist or an infidel and hated to
some degree by those fanatically religious. Some of those conservative cults
derogate people who are liberal, whatever that is, and hate those people also. And
some cultists even berate others, like homosexuals, for the way they have sex.
But why?
Why would a religious group be
judgmental about how other people have sex? It seems illogical. While I do not
have sex that way, and I might even consider it disgusting if I had to see
people have sex that way, I would probably also find it just as disgusting if I
had to see religious people having sex
in whatever ways they do. But since I am not forced to watch either group or
forced to adopt their sexual methods, I can easily conclude that it is none of
my business to decide how others should have sex. I am not even curious about
it. The question is then, why would some religious group be curious about other
people's sex habits or insistent upon imposing their own sexual methods upon
others? And how can the religious know so certainly what sex methods are bad or
unacceptable to their invisible spirits? It is not like we have heard directly
from those invisible spirits expressing what sex is good and what is bad. Have
we?
The justification that Christian
groups give for condemning homosexuals is their clergy's interpretation of
Leviticus 18:22 to mean that their god considers homosexuals to be an
abomination. The actual verse states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind, as
with womankind: it is an abomination."
First of all, notice that the verse
does not mention or condemn how people have sex. Ishmael just lying with
Queequeg without sex has to be an abomination by this verse. Moby Dick is obviously homosexual
propaganda. The Bible here is not
setting any specific limitations on the ways even the faithful can have sex.
Just lying with mankind is an abomination without any mention of sex. But
really, would not the most powerful invisible spirit in the universe be able to
convey her/his demand, if there is one, about how people have sex in a more
clear instruction that does not leave it to the clergy to explain evil into the
verse's meaning? Would a god be so shy about any reference to sex that he would
use some vague euphemism rather than saying anything about sex? Or did that god
actually speak of sexual relations, but one of the prudes that transcribed or
translated it was too upset to use their god's actual words? Melville's
description of Queequeg lying with Ishmael might have made me uncomfortable if
it were not so humorous, but that alone did not make them homosexual or evil,
even though the Bible clearly
requires them to be hated as an abomination. Furthermore, is there no verse
also condemning lesbian sex as an abomination? Perhaps that is exempt from
godly condemnation.
Even if we accept that the Bible is stating God's proclamation that
all homosexuals are an abomination, just how bad is that? It is not mentioned
in the Ten Commandments, so it must not be too bad. It must, therefore, be less
bad than dishonoring your parents or cussing. Perhaps it is one of the very
minor sins, if anything, like even religious people are guilty of committing.
Maybe God does not even agree with the religious fanatics who promote un-Christian
hatred of homosexuals, or liberals, or Democrats. Would we not be surprised to
hear that Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh are devout Christians in spite of the
ungodly hate that they preach.
Leviticus 11:10 states, "...of
all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the
waters, they are an abomination unto you." So when anyone swims in the
waters, or takes a bath or shower in the waters, they are an abomination by the
word of God. And if we interpret this to mean people are only an abomination
while they are in the water, then we have to similarly interpret Leviticus
18:22 to say that homosexuals are only an abomination while they are lying with
mankind, not before or after.
While the Bible does not specifically bar homosexuals from being bishops in
the Episcopal Church, and certainly does not bar homosexuals from marrying,
Leviticus 20:13 does say, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth
with woman, both of them have committed abomination" they shall surely be
put to death." Do all Christians really believe the Bible to the extent
that they want to put homosexuals to death like they once did with the witches
of Salem
Consider the instructions in
Deuteronomy 7:26, "Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine
house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it; but thou shalt utterly detest it,
and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing." Yep, God is
clearly demanding the faithful to hate an abomination. So, those religious
people are required to be haters. Dick Cheney is, therefore, required by his
religion to hate his daughter. It is confirmed by Deuteronomy 12:31,
"...for every abomination to Jehovah he hateth." Remember, I am
without religion and do not have to hate anyone. Perhaps I am more Christian
than are Christians, though I have hope that all Christians are not equally
hateful. Maybe some are even liberal or progressive. But the literal words of
the Bible certainly do not allow believers to be compassionate conservatives.
Another thing that the religious
are required to hate is explained in Deuteronomy 22:5 as "a woman who
wears what pertaineth to a man or a man who wears woman's clothes is an
abomination to God." Wow, is it really that important that a woman not
wear pants? Or since men in biblical times wore robes more like dresses, maybe
men wearing pants and women in dresses is the abomination mentioned in
Deuteronomy. But do we really have to hate women or put them to death for their
fashion choices as the Bible demands,
now that we are more liberal and less barbaric? And if we can overlook men and
women dressing improperly, why not similarly overlook other abominations?
Proverbs 11:20 says, "They
that are perverse in heart are an abomination to Jehovah. But such as are
perfect in their way are his delight." Gee, I thought we were all sinners
and God did not expect us all to be perfect. Guess I was wrong and we have to
hate and put to death those that are perverse in heart. I guess the haters in
the clergy will tell us what makes a person perverse in heart before we kill
those people. But what about the biblical demand that "thou shalt not
kill?" It's a quandary. And how can we be certain that God opposes
aborting fetuses if He is so willing to kill so many groups of adults as
required by Moses' claims of what God told him?
A tougher condemnation is contained
in Proverbs 12:22 as follows: "Lying lips are an abomination to Jehovah;
but they that deal truly are his delight." So, if we treat the equal
abominations of lying with mankind and lying lips as God has instructed, we must
detest, abhor, and put to death even those persons who have ever lied. So, let
him who has never lied come forward to throw the first stone. That may be
Condoleezza Rice, who became so self-righteous at her congressional hearings at
the mere mention that she may have lied. Say, I wonder if George W. Bush is
being honest when he claims the Iraq
Proverbs 16:5 adds another offense:
"Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to Jehovah." So,
certainly those who have such pride in their heart to claim that they are
closer to God must be detested, abhorred, and put to death, just as those who
lie with mankind.
An interesting requirement is
presented in Luke 16:15 as . . . "for that which is exalted among men is
an abomination in the sight of God." The one that comes to mind is
President George W. Bush who is certainly exalted among right-wing religious
fundamentalists. So, he must be just as detested and abhorred as those
homosexuals that those same groups claim must be detested and abhorred even to
denying them equal rights that are enjoyed by other Americans.
Finally, consider Matthew 7:1,
"Judge not, that ye be not judged." This is not a problem for me
because I accept that I do not know, or wonder about, how homosexuals have sex.
So I do not have to hate, detest or abhor them, and I am without the
information that would allow me to judge them. Religious fanatics, however, are
not hindered from judging or hating just by their lack of knowledge, like: how
homosexuals are having sex; whose definition of sex (ours or President Bill
Clinton's) is being used; why their abomination is worse than all the other
abominations described in The Bible;
or why they think their god requires their help in judging if he or she really
is all-powerful? If an all-powerful god really hated all those abominations,
why would he or she not eliminate them without relying on the feeble assistance
of mere mortals?
So, if some Christians are not
haters just for the sport of it, they should speak out against those among them
who, for instance, publicly condemn Sponge Bob Squarepants and other cartoon
characters just for promoting tolerance of others, like homosexuals. Seeking
tolerance does not in any way require that anyone participate in sexual
activities or agree with how others have sex. it only seeks to teach children
to tolerate others. The alternative being sought by anyone who opposes
tolerance of any group is the options of judging others, abhorring others, and
putting others to death. Does any reasonable Christian really believe Tinkey
Winkey, just by his or her or its mere existence, causes children to be lured
into a lifestyle where they might have sex in some way that Jerry Falwell knows
all about and does not agree with? Jerry and the other fanatics evidently felt
they should be judging us all based on how we have sex. I have no problem with
that. Based on my meager sex life for the past many years, I may find myself
sainted even though I do not even believe. That is, if it really is more
important that we have sex in accordance with Jerry's or some other god's
requirements.
I would not resume to judge or
preach to fanatical Christians, but I suspect that Christ would not hate
homosexuals as they do. It seems to me that there is good reason to believe, if
you believe The Bible, that God is
the one that made homosexuals that way or could change them if He wished. On
the other hand, is it not God that Christians believe should do all the
judging? My belief is that if there is a god, notice I do not claim to know, he
or she would not be proud of the religious haters who hate in his or her name.
"I like your Christ, I do not
like your Christians, they are so un-Christ like.--Gandhi.
No comments:
Post a Comment