The Bible "Proves" Climate Change is a Hoax

Tweet of the Day: August 6, 2013

Addressing Leviticus (You Know Which Part)

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

"If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them." -Leviticus 20:13

If you are gay, you have had these words thrown in your face more times than you can count by biblical literalists attempting to excuse homophobic discrimination. I would just like to point out a couple of things regarding these quotes that these folks have overlooked.

First, even if taken literally, these particular verses in no way address lesbians. It seems they are in the clear. Second, if you are a gay man, you would not lie with mankind as you would with womankind because you would not lie with womankind at all. So, I am not really seeing how these verses apply to gay men either. 

If you are bisexual, well, I don't know what to tell you.

And then of course there are the other bits of Leviticus which go completely ignored. The same people calling same-sex relationships abominations forget that they are supposed to kill their kids if they use curse words (20:9), they should be protesting the practices of Red Lobster and any other place that sells shellfish (11:9-12), they should be passing laws against having tattoos (19:28), and the list goes on and on (and that is just the Leviticus stuff, let alone the rest of the Bible).

While there are certainly other Bible verses that are used to denounce homosexuality, these particular Leviticus verses are flimsy at best and do not hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

As I have said elsewhere, using the Bible to denounce homosexuality is a pretense. If this were really about the Bible, they would be publicly protesting a host of things they do not protest while supporting a host of things that they do not currently support. Their focus however is on using the Bible as a weapon against the gay community. As much as they say they are not against gay people and the are simply trying to adhere to the Bible, they have made it very clear that their idea of holiness is cherry-picking the parts of the Bible they like, which includes the parts they deem to be homophobic and not the parts about loving thy neighbour.

What the Bible Says (And Doesn't Say) On Marriage

From the Des Moines Register:

As academic biblical scholars, we wish to clarify that the biblical texts do not support the frequent claim that marriage between one man and one woman is the only type of marriage deemed acceptable by the Bible’s authors. 

The fact that marriage is not defined as only that between one man and one woman is reflected in the entry on “marriage” in the authoritative Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000): “Marriage is one expression of kinship family patterns in which typically a man and at least one woman cohabitate publicly and permanently as a basic social unit” (p. 861). 

The phrase “at least one woman” recognizes that polygamy was not only allowed, but some polygamous biblical figures (e.g., Abraham, Jacob) were highly blessed. In 2 Samuel 12:8, the author says that it was God who gave David multiple wives: “I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom. ... And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more” (Revised Standard Version).

~

Ezra 10:2-11 forbids interracial marriage and orders those people of God who already had foreign wives to divorce them immediately. 

So, while it is not accurate to state that biblical texts would allow marriages between people of the same sex, it is equally incorrect to declare that a “one-man-and-one-woman” marriage is the only allowable type of marriage deemed legitimate in biblical texts. 

This is not only our modern, academic opinion. This view of the multiple definitions of “biblical” marriage has been acknowledged by some of the most prominent names in Christianity. 

That's the problem with using the Bible as a justification for certain things. Sometimes, the Bible can be a Pandora's box, and the consequences of basing laws on those things can be worse than you intended.

A Bible Verse the Right Does Not Quote

Like the photo says, this is a verse you will not hear quoted by Republicans/conservatives, especially those in elected office. It is particularly interesting that the verse comes from the book of Leviticus. This is the selfsame book that these same GOP politicians use to excuse their opposition to LGBT equality. That particular verse is in chapter 18. Yet one chapter later is this verse which they categorically ignore, saying that we should make life for illegal immigrants here in America so bad that they self-deport. This is yet another example of theocratic hypocrisy, cherry-picking from the Bible on one issue while ignoring the Bible when it does not jive with their opinion. You can not have it both ways. The Bible condemns many things (like shellfish) and no one thinks twice about it. The Bible also upholds somethings (like stoning a woman to death if she is not a virgin when she is married) that we as a society find absolutely reprehensible. This is why someone using the Bible as the sole justification for supporting/condemning a given policy does not hold up to scrutiny. The Bible is good for some things, but creating legislation for a locality, state, or a pluralistic, diverse nation is definitely not one of them.

Catholic League Leader Doesn't Know the Bible

Fox's Bill O'Reilly vs. Fox's Laura Ingraham

This is so good it has to be fattening.

Seriously though, I'll take issue with a particular thing that was said. Laura Ingraham says that this debate over marriage equality is new and if given time, those who support "traditional marriage" will come up with better reasons than just the Bible. That statement is factually incorrect all over. The Defense of Marriage Act is about 17 years old and we have been having this debate at least that long. This debate is, thus, not new. Those opposing equality have had decades to come up with a justification for their position beyond the Bible, and they have. The problem for them is that justification is based on "social science" from sources (these sources being primarily biased towards social conservatives) which have been debunked one by one by social science from sources of good repute. The Regnerus study for example is one that, since its publication, has been sited time and again by social conservatives. Unfortunately for them, this study is plagued by methodological problems, the fact that it was funded by decidedly conservative forces, and the man behind the study has said it was skewed to sway the Supreme Court when they took up the issue of marriage equality.

Despite the supposed justifications from social conservatives, people are less and less inclined to buy into their view on this issue. With the science demonstrably against them, thumping the Bible is pretty much the best thing social conservatives have left. It is too bad for them that it is not enough, and America is not a Christian theocracy.

The Truth About Sodom & Gommorah

Pat Robertson: Ignore the Bible?

First, America was not founded as a Christian nation. God is not mentioned explicitly in either the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution of the United States (if memory serves). The "creator" is mentioned in the Declaration and Christians believe that to be God, but God is not mentioned by name. Also, I'll direct those who misguidedly believe America is a Christian nation to article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli (I have written about this previously) which states in its entirety:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

One of the founders was President when this treaty passed and signed it into law (and I'm sure some of them were in Congress as well). It is pretty hard to look at this and still think that America is explicitly a Christian nation. Then again, some people have a talent for not doing research and putting on the blinders when it comes to looking at facts.

Second, if you are going to recommend ignoring the Bible's support of slavery because society now sees it as wrong, should you not do the same regarding the Bible's (alleged) condemnation of homosexuality? More and more people are supporting LGBT equality, they see homosexuality as just another variant of humanity, and believe that homophobia is damaging to people. Thus, by Robertson's own logic, the Bible saying (allegedly) that homosexuality is wrong should be ignored.

Thanks Pat!