T Nation

Too Much PC / Too Much Religion

I thought this was pretty funny stuff. I hope some of you enjoy this, but even more so, I hope this pisses some of you off even more.

Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s law. I have learned a great deal from you and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them:

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

  2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

  3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

  4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

  5. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there “degrees” of abomination?

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

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

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

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

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

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

Robin L. Spanier

“out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I’ll meet you there.”
– Rumi, Sufi poet

thanks for posting this -it was too funny!-julianne

One simple question.

Where has Bush enunciated that he is trying to bring God’s law to the masses or invoke strict interpretation of the Biblical word?

I follow current affairs fairly closely and I have yet to hear Bush announce any of these things.

All of this campy, wonderfully original satire is a hootenanny, it really is (I trust you’re picking up on my sarcasm), but wouldn’t it be even more compelling of it were based on something real?

To this generation, it is better to be clever than wise. Not one time have I heard Bush utter that he was a Biblical literalist that hated homosexuals - after all, in 2000, he had two gay appointees to his administration and has recently come out and said he’d consider civil unions.

I simply cannot understand the weird contradiction the Left has with modern religion - stifling, arrogant condescension for anyone who claims to be a Christian or adhere to the Bible, but pathological admiration and defense of any religious dogma not named Christianity, no matter what it espouses. I wish - I wish - Leftists would roll their eyes and sneer every time someone mentioned the Quran, instead of batting cowlike eyes with their devotion to ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’. At least then, though offensive, I could consider their attitudes consistent.

Am I entertained? Not really. Pissed off, as you had so desperately hoped? Nah. More like bored with the same old hackneyed, unoriginal, intellectually unsustainable tripe that the Left spews in the absence of meaningful education on religion. The Left is like a bad stand up comedian who doesn’t know when to throw in the towel on bad material. Sort of like the political equivalent of that one guy in every group who still yelps “who let the dogs out!” when he gets excited.

[quote]teamstaley wrote:
thanks for posting this -it was too funny!-julianne[/quote]

Teamstaley comes out on the side of the liberals…interesting…oh my.

Hey Thunder,

I don’t discriminate, I think any religion be it Christianity, Zionism, or Islam, or the damn Hari Krishna’s, for that matter can be harmful! With anyone of them the belief is they have it cornered on the correct way to live and believe and they feel it is their duty to convert others!

That is the problem with religion, if people could just be confident in their beliefs without the need to “spread the word.” the world would be a better place!

thunderbolt, the only thing that I am desperate for are the three chicks in the “Who would you bang” forum.

actually it was me, JULIANNE who thought it was funny. I have a right to my own opinion and I am not asking anyone here to read into my own political viewpoint. -Julianne

Awesome post man. First things first - I’m not going to go into the details here - I have a final to study for and haven’t the time, especially if I have any chance to fit in a lift today :-P. But suffice to say, for anyone who knows anything about the Bible and Christianity, these arguments are utter nonsense.

Second, Bush being against gay marriage is primarily a response to the view of the VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS. That is what a president is supposed to do - follow the will of the people. Marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman, and for a variety of reasons, most Americans feel that way. And, strictly speaking, there is no discrimination – you can be gay, and get married - you probably just wouldn’t want to. The gay rights crowd has pushed too far… average americans are a hard group to get up and arms, but its finally happened. In all the states where there was a gay marriage ban on the ballot, it overwhelmingly passed. The vast majority of states have either a constitutional or statutory ban. If the rights crowd keeps pushing, I can guarantee, eventually, there will be a federal amendment.

I think homosexual people should be treated equally as individuals, but when it comes to marriage and family, the building block of our country, I’m sorry, but I have a problem with it. The government should not bestow a status (marriage) on people who cannot possibly further the purpose of the existence of that status.

If you notice most if not all of these quotes or from the Old Testament, in the New Testament Jesus abolished many of these foolish laws. To read these quotes and use them as evidence that the bible is nonsense shows ignorance. It is like telling someone what happened in a book without ever reading the end of the book, which happens a lot.

I didn’t realize Jesus abolished many of these foolish laws. could you give me examples.

I do not have my bible handy right now. I can however remember one right off hand. “It is not what you put into your body that makes you unclean, but what comes out.” It is believed that Jesus was making a direct reference to the food laws and such quoted above. I will try to get more examples for you and post them later.

Not to take this post to seriously as I know it was meant to be humerous, but can anyone argue that Christianity, even with some of its flaws, civilized mankind? Im not very religious at all, but I can certainly see the truth in this and think Christianity deserves respect for this fact alone.

As interesting as I find Roman history, I wouldnt want to live under their set of rules pre-christianity.

If you really follow Jesus, why not be Jewish? I’ve wondered that for a while, but I don’t know the details.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
One simple question.

Where has Bush enunciated that he is trying to bring God’s law to the masses or invoke strict interpretation of the Biblical word?[/quote]

Gay Marriage.

I assume that President Bush’s opposition to gay marriage is due to his religious beliefs, which was obviously the point of this post. If I am wrong, what is his reasoning?

“It’s always been that way”.

The most ridiculous argument of the bunch. Need I say why?

“Gay couples can’t have children.”

Shall we forbid any couple that cannot have children from getting married?

“Gay couples can’t form stable families.”

The studies I have read on this point seem to suggest that gay couples raise children that are just as stable as straight couples. Besides, if I were to show that 50% of white/black/pick a race marriages end in divorce, should we prohibit an entire race from getting married to “protect the sanctity”?

“It’s just wrong.”

Please…

“Most people oppose it”

Actually that’s wrong, most people support equal rights for gay couples, as long as it isn’t called “marriage”.

Can anyone please tell me what Bush’s argument against gay marriage is if it is not that the Bible calls it an “abomination”? Personally I used to support civil unions and not gay marriage, but when I was honest myself I realized that my only argument was a dressed up version of “just because.”

Obviously the answer is to speperate the the word “marriage” from the government. Couples go to a judge and get a “civil union” license that does not discriminate based on sex. Those couples are then free to go to the church of their chosing and be “married” with the blessing on the supreme entity of their chosing. In actually it would be the same thing that happens now except the Bush gets to define his word however he wants, but of course this makes too much sense and will never happen.

As a side note, does anyone else find it ridiculous our President wants to amend our Constitution to add a passage that defines a word?

[quote]veruvius wrote:
If you really follow Jesus, why not be Jewish? I’ve wondered that for a while, but I don’t know the details.[/quote]

The reason is quite simple, if you believe Jesus was the Messiah you are Christian. Jews do not believe this.

[quote]teamstaley wrote:
actually it was me, JULIANNE who thought it was funny. I have a right to my own opinion and I am not asking anyone here to read into my own political viewpoint. -Julianne[/quote]

Careful now Julianne, ZEB’s making a list and checking it twice, gonna find out who?s naughty and nice.

Moriarty,

This has been addressed before, but:

“Gay Marriage.”

So opposition to gay marriage is surefire evidence that Bush wants to mandate God’s law. Hmmm.

Let’s use your rationale and apply it. John Kerry opposed gay marriage as well. Was he trying to make the Christian gospel the law of the land, thereby ending secular government in these United States? You mean no matter who I voted for in the general election that opposed gay marriage, I would have voted for a Biblical literalist and theocrat who wanted to install the Bible in place of the Constitution?

Surely you don’t believe your own drivel, Moriarty?

"Can anyone please tell me what Bush’s argument against gay marriage is if it is not that the Bible calls it an “abomination”? Personally I used to support civil unions and not gay marriage, but when I was honest myself I realized that my only argument was a dressed up version of “just because.”

Well, my arguments against gay marriage have little to do with religion per se - mostly my arguments are historical, cultural, and natural. I needn’t go over them again, but rest assured, I never invoked the words ‘Jesus’ or ‘commandment’ when I argue against gay marriage, and by and large, neither do a lot of gay marriage opponents, your brainless reductionism of opposition to gay marriage being inseparable from evangelical Bible-thumping not withstanding.

“As a side note, does anyone else find it ridiculous our President wants to amend our Constitution to add a passage that defines a word?”

I don’t support the amendment, but I don’t think it’s ridiculous. It was proposed to pre-empt judges who want to manufacture the ‘right’ of marriage between whoever they think would be fun (don’t forget bigamy is outlawed - how come?) via judicial fiat. I don’t like the amendment proposal, and frankly it’s headed nowhere, but ridiculous? No.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So opposition to gay marriage is surefire evidence that Bush wants to mandate God’s law. Hmmm.
[/quote]

I wouldn’t say “surefire”, but I believe that Bush’s rationale for opposing gay marriage is because the Bible calls it an abomination. Nothing in your post argues against this.

No, I don’t think John Kerry opposed gay marriage because the Bible calls it an abomination. I think John Kerry opposed gay marriage (and supported C.U.s) because it was the popular thing to do. Again, I think the Bush’s (primary) rationale for opposing gay marriage is that the Bible calls it an abomination.

Yes, I do believe that Bush’s primary rationale for opposing gay marriage is because his religion opposes it. Your post does not argue this.

I was not commenting on your arguments against gay marriage, I was commenting on Bush’s. Please point out where I brainlessly reduced opposition to gay marriage. In fact, I listed 5 arguments I’ve heard against gay marriage and none of them are biblical.

So anyway, all of your name calling aside, You asked for someone to point out where Bush was trying to bring God’s law to the masses. I pointed out that it appeared Bush wants to constitutionally prohibit gay marriage because in god’s law it is an abomination. I don’t think that opinion is “drivel”, “brainless” or whatever else you call it. I then asked if anyone knew what Bush’s argument against gay marriage was if it wasn’t because the Bible says so.

If you were on the left, Zeb would ask, why the hatred?

Moriarty,

In turn.

"I wouldn’t say “surefire”

I asked “where has Bush enunciated that he is trying to bring God’s law to the masses or invoke strict interpretation of the Biblical word?”

Your answer? “Gay Marriage”.

Pretty straightforward, I thought.

“Again, I think the Bush’s (primary) rationale for opposing gay marriage is that the Bible calls it an abomination.”

Ok, but this is a hunch, not evidence. Bush may think gay marriage is wrong because aliens ate his brain, but I have no evidence. What I want is not conjecture, speculation, or rumor - I am curious where Bush has declared that he is bringing God’s law to the masses.

“Yes, I do believe that Bush’s primary rationale for opposing gay marriage is because his religion opposes it. Your post does not argue this.”

So I 'll take the time to argue it now - I believe there exists no evidence that Bush wants to ban gay marriage because of the abomination clause of the Bible. As stated earlier, Bush had two gay appointees to his administration in 2000, has recently come out and said he would consider civil unions, and got around 20% of the gay vote in 2004.

“I was not commenting on your arguments against gay marriage, I was commenting on Bush’s.”

But you don’t know what Bush’s arguments are - you’re only going off what you ‘think’ Bush ‘thinks’. You said it yourself. So, no, you’re not arguing on Bush’s arguments. You’re inventing a position to attack.

“So anyway, all of your name calling aside”

No name calling. I never said you were a bad guy/gal.

“You asked for someone to point out where Bush was trying to bring God’s law to the masses. I pointed out that it appeared Bush wants to constitutionally prohibit gay marriage because in god’s law it is an abomination.”

Appeared? This is just speculation. If Bush is going to be levied with all sorts of charges, it’d do well to have some actual proof of his positions. That’s all I requested in my original post in this thread.

“If you were on the left, Zeb would ask, why the hatred?”

I don’t hate - I think these kinds of debate are enlightening and enjoyable. I don’t dislike you, Moriarty - don’t take it personally.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Your answer? “Gay Marriage”.

Pretty straightforward, I thought.
[/quote]

The next two words in my post were “I assume”. I go on to use “assume, assumption, I think, etc…” I was clearly expressing opinion.

I don’t think you will ever be satisfied then, because even if the were/is the case, Bush, being a politician, will never come out and say that. And even if he did who’s to say if he were telling the truth.

Simple question to you though…Do you or do you not beileve that Bush’s primary rationale for opposing gay marriage is religious (not that there’s something wrong with that)? Honestly.

Those, actually, are very good points. I’ve always wondered how much of Bush being the good Christian was conviction and how much was just smart politics. Honstly, when I think back to interviews and the debates, I always questioned the conviction in his voice when he spoke about the “sanctity of marriage” and the “culture of life.” Always just sounded like playing to the base to me. It never had the same honest sound as “bring it on” or “we’re going to win.” (not being sarcastic there). Maybe you’ve convinced me on this one, but only to the extent that Bush’s primary rationale for opposing gay marriage was to get the religious vote (same as Kerry’s, in my opinion).

Again to clarify, I am not arguing against Bush being against gay marriage because it is against his religion. The conversation went:

  1. Third-party says Bush doesn’t like gay marriage because the Bible says so, but look at the other things that Bible says are bad too!
  2. You say: Show me where Bush wants to legislate God’s law
  3. I pointed out that I believe that Bush wants to prohibit gay marriage because that is God’s law

As a side-note, what does it say that Bush wants to amend the constitution and neither of us really know what the rationale for his position on the argument is?

Again, suggesting that Bush opposes gay marriage because of religious reasons wasn’t a “charge,” I don’t see anything wrong with that. And as far as actual proof of Bush’s intentions I don’t see how you will ever get that, but it my mind it is pretty clear that Bush’s reasons are religious. Others feel similarly.