My guest blogger today is Wayne Anderson.
is a Florida Democrat. He has a degree in chemical engineering from the Colorado School of Mines, and has his Doctorate Jurisprudence in Law. This paper was copyrighted in 2008 and Wayne was obviously way ahead of our times! Thanks for sharing, Wayne ! Wayne
Our Religion of Hate
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
? And what about Leviticus 20:27 which states: A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death." David Copperfield might have been put to death by religious fanatics in the past, but if Christianity can now overlook the obviously barbaric requirements demanded by some of their god's putative words, why can't they ignore those verses that require barbaric hatred of others because of something as unimportant as how they have sex? 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
war was not a mistake and he is not sorry to have started. We should certainly hope that is not another example of lying lips. But what politician would ever be guilty of that abomination? 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.