Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Dear Christians: A Modest Proposal


It’s a curious thing, isn’t it?

It’s a curious thing that when religious people create a law granting themselves “religious freedom” somehow the rest of us end up with less freedom.

I said as much on Twitter:


The responses were … instructive.

Here’s a couple from one random internet denizen:


Everybody got that? Christians don’t pass laws. Politicians do. 

In America, Christians don’t pass religious laws, it’s the politicians, see? And it’s totally coincidental that the laws in question were written and passed entirely by Christians despite protests and pushback from non-Christians (and many, many non-fanatical Christians too, to be entirely fair).

Earl, who as it turns out is Canadian, went on to helpfully explain how “Laws on morality do not tend to come from the religious.”


Laws on morality don’t come from the religious.

Laws. On Morality. Don’t come from the religious.

Heh heh.

Sure they don’t, Earl. Suuuuure they don’t.

That’s why so many atheists propose morality laws everyday here in America, right?

That’s why the religious spend so much time explaining to the non-religious why there can’t be any morality without a deity in the sky to punish the wicked for doing bad things. Right?

Earl, it seems, lives in the Canadian province of Denial.

I’ve got a pile here of outraged email and direct messages in response to that tweet. Others agreed with Earl’s premise.  Christians, they tell me, are being discriminated against in the United States. Christian values and beliefs are under attack from every quarter. Christians are being persecuted in record numbers, just like in ancient Rome, just like in those Islamic countries we hear so much about.

And so these new laws are simply there to protect religious freedom – for everybody, of course, not just the majority religion who already owns nearly every holiday and tradition and political office in America, tax free.

It’s just a coincidence that the sponsors of Religious Freedom Restoration bills happen to be Christian.

It’s just a coincidence that laws are written and passed by people who believe they must protect Christian beliefs and promote the Christian version of morality and who loudly declare the United States a Christian nation based on Christian values.

It’s just a coincidence that Christian fundamentalists came up with Indiana’s new Religious Freedom bill – and Arizona’s Religious Freedom Bill, and eighteen other states with similar religious “freedom” laws. Not to mention the federal law. It’s just a coincidence that those bills had no non-Christian sponsors.

It’s just a coincidence that it was a Christian Arizona state legislator who declared church attendance should be mandatory for every American. Not for religious reasons, of course, oh no. For moral reasons. It’s just a coincidence that she didn’t say Mosque attendance should be mandatory, or Temple attendance, or Pagan Druid Ceremonies, or a non-religious class on ethics and morality. No. Just a coincidence. An oversight. Her evangelical Christian beliefs had nothing to do with her statement that every single American be forced to attend Christian church for moral reasons. 

It’s just a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of those who attempt to limit reproductive freedom and end of life choices are fanatical Christian fundamentalists.

It’s just a coincidence that those currently demanding America go to war with Muslim Iran are, yep, again outspoken Christians hoping to bring about the prophesied Holy Land apocalypse of their Christian bible. Totally coincidental.

And, of course, it’s purely a coincidence that a proposed ballot initiative currently before the California Attorney General, the so-called “Sodomite Suppression Act” was brought by a vehemently evangelical Christian.


I’ll say this, at least that last one, the California Sodomite Suppression Act is honest.


At least the proposed law doesn’t whore itself up with bullshit lies about “equal rights” and non-discrimination like the recently passed religious law in Indiana.

The proposed California law makes no bones about it.

It hates gay people and wants them dead.

Right up front the proposed Sodomite Suppression Act says that the Christian God hates gay people and non-Christians, and all true Christians should be allowed to murder anybody not of their faith on sight. Bang, bullet to the head.



In California, anybody can propose a ballot initiative.

If they pay the requisite fee of $200 and submit the proper form, the state Attorney General is required to create an introductory description and allow a ballot petition to be circulated. 

Now, it seems highly unlikely that the initiative’s sponsor, lawyer and Christian conservative Matthew G. McLaughlin, will be able to collect the required 365,880 signatures needed to get the Sodomite Suppression Act on the ballot.

And even if McLaughlin does get the signatures, it’s highly unlikely that California voters would pass the act into law.

And even if they did, it would be unconstitutional. Obviously so. And would be immediately thrown out by a judge – without the necessity of going all the way to the Supreme Court at either the state or federal levels.

A lot of people are outraged that it’s possible for such a bill to become law, no matter how unlikely. They want the Attorney General to find a way to stop it before it can become a petition.

You know what I think?

I think this is as good of place as any to get this hate right out into the open.

I think it’s about time to drag this festering murderous Christian bigotry out of the dark kicking and screaming and spastically clutching its little plastic Jesus, drag it out into the light where we can all see the ugly hunchback pinheaded slobbering monster clearly for what it is.

Go on, get it out in front of the voters.

But – but – instead of the Sodomite Suppression Act, let’s call it The Mandatory Christian Compliance Act.

No more cherry picking Leviticus for Christians.

From now on, for those who identify as Christian fundamentalists, if you insist that the rest of us comply with your religious ideas, if you’re going to demand the right to kill Sodomites as your God commanded, then you have to comply with all of His law, all of it, to the letter, not just the part you like.

Since the primary Christian objections to homosexuality come from the Book of Leviticus, let’s just us see what other requirements that part of the Bible levies on Christians, shall we?

1.       Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)

That’s right, Christians are prohibited from burning honey or anything with yeast in it when they make offerings to God.

Better keep a close eye on those sacramental hosts when they’re in the oven.  Hate to piss off God by burning the holy bread. Of course it’s unleavened, but are you sure, really sure, there’s not a single cell of yeast in there? That stuff, wild yeast, floats around all over the place. That’s where natural sourdough comes from, you know. I’m just saying, you sure? Really sure?

It’s probably not something the average Christian has to worry about, but then again it’s number one on the list and you’d hate to see an entire church damned to hell for a contaminated batch. 

The bible doesn’t give a specific punishment for this transgression, just the standard penalty you get when you make God mad.

Now since the Sodomite Suppression Act updates the killing of Sodomites with the use of modern secular tools (i.e. guns and bullets), and specifically cites the California Penal Code, I think it’s both fair and keeping within the spirit of the original proposal to use California’s sentencing guidelines for those Christians who violate their own holy law. $1000 or 30 days in jail, suspended if nobody gets hurt, should do it for the first offense.

2.       Failing to include salt in offerings to God(2:13)

I’ve been in a lot of churches, never seen any salt in the sanctuary.

Same deal, you offer up prayers to God and forget the salt, $1000 fine or 30 days in jail. For the first offense.

You know, I bet you could make a killing in the Holy Salt Shaker market once this law goes into effect.

3.       No eating fat (3:17)

According to the Bible, this one is “a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live.”

By God’s law, all fat is to be saved for offerings to God. All fat. All.

Any Christian who eats fat of any kind, but particularly that from “clean” animals, is in violation of the law. And any Christian who fails to offer up fat to God is in violation of the law.

$1000 fine or 30 days in jail. This is big one though, God loves his bacon after all. In accordance with California sentencing guidelines, the second offense gets you a $10,000 fine or a year in jail.  You don’t even want to talk about three strikes and you’re out. Seriously.

Between this and the following items, you’d better stick to salads, Christians – no oil & vinegar dressing either.

4.       No eating blood (3:17)

No traditional English breakfast for Christians. No black pudding or blood sausages.  No Scandinavian pancakes. No French coq au vin or pressed duck. 

I don’t suppose this will be a real hardship, but a lot of Christians are going to miss those rare steaks. 

5.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)

Ah, now we’re talking felonies.

Leviticus says that those who fail to testify against ANY wrongdoing, any, “They will be held responsible” for the wrongdoing itself.

Any wrongdoing, no matter how great or small. Any violation of the law. Any transgression. Any bending of the rules in any fashion, and if you don’t speak up, Christians, then you’re just as guilty as the person who committed the crime.

Standard sentencing guidelines apply, you could find yourself facing a minor $65 fine or the electric chair. 

Better step up. Seriously.

6.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1)

Under secular law that would be hearsay, but under God’s law, you’d better report any alleged violation you hear about, no matter how small. 

God holds you to account for hearsay same as He does for witnessing actual crimes, i.e. “they shall be held responsible.”

7.       No touching an unclean animal (5:2)

No dogs. No pigs. No snakes. No shellfish. No crustaceans. No touching. This isn’t about eating unclean animals, we’ll get to that in a minute. This is about touching them.

Pet a dog? $1000 fine or 30 days in jail. 

8.       Carelessly making an oath (5:4)

Any Christian who “carelessly” makes an oath, even if they have their fingers crossed behind their backs, even if they don’t realize they’re doing it, is in violation of God’s law. $1000 fine or 30 days in jail.

Boy, if I was a Christian, I’d be very, very careful about clicking “Agree” on any software update.

Especially from Microsoft. 

That shit could get expensive really fast.

9.       Deceiving a neighbor about something trusted to them (6:2)

God says that if you borrow something from your neighbor and you lie about it, you have to return the item and pay them 20% of the item’s value PLUS the usual penalty of $1000 fine or 30 days in jail.

10.   Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3) 

God is not real big on finders-keepers. Any Christian who comes across something somebody else has lost and tries to keep it, is required to return the item to the person who lost it, pay them 20% of item’s value, and be assigned the normal penalty of $1000 fine or 30 days in jail.

11.   Bringing unauthorized fire before God (10:1)

This for some reason is a biggie.

If a Christian starts an unauthorized fire, God is supposed to smite him. However, just like the gay thing, since God generally doesn’t go around smiting people who violate Leviticus these days, it’s up to us. So, any Christian starting an “unauthorized fire” should be shot in the head as specified by the Sodomite Suppression Act.

If I was a California Christian, especially in SOCAL, I’d be damned scared, damned scared, come fire season. Shit’s already crazy enough without summary executions.

12.   Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)

God’s law is pretty specific about this: Messy hair? You will die and God will be mad at everybody.

Now, depending on which version of the bible you read, this law might only apply to the priesthood. But better safe than sorry I say. Any Christian with unkempt hair? Bang! Right in the forehead. Get them before God gets us – just like it says in the Sodomite Suppression Act.

13.   Tearing your clothes (10:6)

Again, you’ll die and God will be mad at everybody. You know what to do if a Christian rips his pants.

And remember, it’s the law.

14.   Drinking alcohol in holy places (10:9)

Guess what? “You will die.”

Looks like open season on Catholics and Baptists, eh?

15.   Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (11:8)

16.   Touching the carcass of any of the above (11:8)

17.   Eating or touching the carcass of any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)

18.   Eating or touching the carcass of the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19) 

What the hell is a hoopoe?

19.   Eating or touching the carcass of flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)

By the time you figure out what kind of legs the damned thing has, it’s probably too late.

20.   Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (11:27)  

21.   Eating or touching the carcass of the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard,the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)

22.   Eating or touching the carcass of any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)

God really doesn’t like you touching his stuff.

No eating pigs, rabbits, and the bible specifically mentions camels – though I don’t know how common camel BBQ is in California. Nevertheless, don’t do it, or you will be “unclean” yourself.

No eating or touching birds, bugs, lizards, or dead cats.

The bible’s not real clear on what the punishment for being unclean is, so the standard penalty applies, $1000 fine or 30 days in jail for each offense.

Also, note that part about no touching. Especially no touching pigs or pig parts. So, no more football. Nope. No football. Even if the ball is made from synthetics, it’s still called a pigskin. Do you really want to take a chance? With the guy who killed off every firstborn in Egypt and drowned the entire world. Really?

Besides, you’re supposed be praying all day on Sunday, not watching sports and drinking beer. Bad Christian, no salvation.

23.   Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)

Any woman who gives birth to a boy is unclean for a week, and then forbidden from attending church for thirty-three days.

THEN she has to offer up a sacrifice to God.

Otherwise? It’s jail time!

24.   Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5) 

Giving birth to girl is worse. Unclean for a week and forbidden from attending Church for sixty-six days. Then sacrifice and don’t forget the fat and salt, because the cops will be checking.  

25.   Having sex with your mother (18:7)

Now, if it were me, I’d say that the act itself was punishment enough, but God says that if a Christian has sex with his mom, he’s to be “cut off from his people.”

So, I’m guessing that’s either solitary confinement or exile to Alabama.

26.   Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8)

Yeah, that’s a big no no. Plus, Dude, really? Anyway, both are to be put to death.

27.   Having sex with your sister (18:9)

Good news, God says that if you have sex with your sister, you get the choice of marrying her or being put to death.

The bad news is that if you marry her, you’re both to “be removed from your people” and sent to West Virginia.

28.   Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)

29.   Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)

Standard penalty applies, solitary confinement and major fines.

30.   Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)

This is big deal for Christians. Leviticus mentions it twice.  Standard penalty, solitary and fines, plus in Leviticus 20:19 God specifies that the offender will be held responsible for the dishonor. I’m not real clear on what that means, but we’d better just shoot him.

31.   Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14)

32.   Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)

What are you? Woody Allen?

33.   Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)

34.   Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (18:17)

Okay, even Jesus would call you Bro for this one. You did the mother and the daughter and the granddaughter? Hallelujah, Duuuuude! Ever thought about going into the priesthood, you’re a natural! 

35.   Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)

Somehow I doubt you’ll live long enough for God to punish you for this one.

Also, Jesus, man. Are you crazy?

36.   Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)

Hey, I hear it helps with the cramps.

37.   Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20)

Basically, if you’re a Christian and you’re having sex of any kind in any position at any time with anybody, ever, you’re screwed. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

38.   Giving your children to be sacrificed to Moloch (18:21)

Is this a thing? Does this happen nowadays? I mean do we really need a law?

And honestly, was this even a thing back in Biblical times?

It was? 

Moloch sacrifice. Well, then.

Okay, Christians, anybody caught sacrificing your kids to Moloch will be shot in the head. Other people’s kids? That’s okay.

39.   Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22)

Ah, finally!

Wait, thirty-nine?

Gay sex is thirty-nine?  

Gay sex is wedged in between Moloch and making metal gods?

What. The. Fuck?

Thirty-ninth? Thirty-ninth? Gay sex didn’t even make the Ten Commandments. And in Leviticus it’s thirty-nine? Thirty-nine?

Don’t eat Bald Eagles is more important than don’t have gay sex.

Don’t touch bugs with bendy legs is more important than don’t have gay sex. 

No Messy Hair is more important than don’t have gay sex – seriously, go look at your bible. It’s right there. The fact that you own a fucking comb is more important to God than not having gay sex.

I’m just saying here!

Hey, don’t get pissy with me. This is your goofy stone-age religion, not mine. Always carry a comb! Come on

40.   Having sex with an animal (18:23)

You have to shoot them both.

Good thing this is California and not Texas. We’d need a lot more bullets.

41.   Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4)

Is anybody else picturing 50 foot tall Robo-Jesus shooting laser bolts from glowing red eyes or is it just me?

We told you not to make a metal god! Now look what you’ve done! No! Spare us, Robo-Jesus! Zap! Zap! Aaaaagh!

It’s just me, isn’t it?

42.   Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)

Leviticus is pretty specific about this. Christian farmers are to leave the outer edges of their crops as a gift to the poor.

Avocados. Oranges. Grapes (see item number 43). Nuts. Soybeans. Cabbages. Doesn’t matter. You leave the outer rows for the poor.

I’m curious why you don’t see more Christians demanding this. Seems like it would go a lot further towards Jesus’s command to feed the hungry than shooting gay people would – but then I’m not a Christian so what do I know? I’m rooting for Robo-Jesus.

43.   Picking up grapes that have fallen in your  vineyard (19:10)

God says that any grapes that fall in your vineyard are to be given to the poor. He was quite specific about it.

There’s a lot of vineyards in California, aren’t there? And there’s a lot of poor people.

So how come there are raisins?

Nobody ever asks the Pope these questions and you’d really think they would, wouldn’t you?

But again, all things being equal in God’s eyes, He’d probably rather you were out shooting gay people instead of feeding the poor.

44.   Stealing (19:11)

45.   Lying (19:11) 

46.   Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12) 

47.   Defrauding your neighbor (19:13) 

48.   Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (19:13)

God obviously doesn’t understand how Capitalism works. Which is kind of weird, given how much he loves America and all.

49.   Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)

50.   Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)

Uh oh.

51.   Spreading slander (19:16) 

Bad news for Birthers, Truthers, and Fox.

52.   Doing anything to endanger a neighbor's life (19:16) 

53.   Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18) 

Boy, good thing Christians don’t bear grudges.  God hates that, which is why he’s been mad at the entire human race because some naked chick helped herself to an apple 10,000 years ago.

But I digress.

54.   Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)

55.   Cross-breeding animals (19:19) 

56.   Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19) 

Laws 44 through 56 don’t have specified punishments.  Gay sex, God saw fit to spell out the sentence for that. Because gay sex. But stealing, lying, fraud, perverting justice? Whatever. Use your best judgment. Community service.

57.   Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20)

Christians have to offer up a ram in sacrifice.

What about California Governator Schwarzenegger? How come he didn’t burn a sheep on the front lawn of his mansion when his wife caught him screwing the help? Easy, he was sleeping with his own slave. It’s a technicality, but God’s totally good with it.

58.   Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)

Don’t have this kind of sex. Don’t have that kind of sex. No screwing your mom. No sleeping with your sister. No banging your aunt or you uncle’s second cousin twice removed. No screwing somebody else’s slave or cows. No cheating. No lying.

Also? No fruit.

Anybody else get the feeling that this list is a little arbitrary?

59.   Practicing divination or seeking omens (19:26)

Hmmm. Leviticus mentions this three times.

It only mentions don’t be gay twice.

So, how about all all those Christians with TV shows and all those Christian preachers who keep prophesizing the end of the world? God’s wrath. Poison arrows and toads falling from the sky?

According to Leviticus, those Christians should be shot in the head immediately.

60.   No trimming your beard (19:27)

61.   No cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)

62.   No tattoos (19:28)

Clear rules. Pretty unambiguous. 

It’s gonna be hard to tell the fundamentalist Christians from the fundamentalist Muslims (and the Jews for that matter), but then it already is. They’ve got a hell of a lot more in common than they don’t – probably why they hate each.

Leviticus doesn’t specify a particular punishment for shaving, haircuts, or ink, so I guess we should just apply the standard $1000 fine or 30 days in jail for each offense.

63.   Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)

God says that if you make your daughter prostitute herself, the whole land will turn to prostitution.

Because apparently your daughter is just that goddamned good (But then, the preacher’s daughter usually is).

Seems like an odd punishment, doesn’t it?

What? You made your daughter into a prostitute? Okay, whores for everybody! That’ll teach you!

64.   Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)

Doesn’t Nancy Reagan still live in California?

Get in the car, Nancy. You’re going to jail.

65.   Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)

When I get old, I’m going to spend my days wandering through churches making citizen’s arrests.  No, no, don’t get up … just kidding, you’re under arrest!

66.   Mistreating foreigners (19:33-34)

“the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born”   

Again, pretty specific. The foreigner residing among you MUST BE treated as your native-born.

Must be.

So, how come devout Christians aren’t flooding the California State Attorney General’s office with petitions to get the “Give Jose and Juan full native born citizenship right goddamned NOW” act?

Of course, I have the same question about the “Prostitutes For Everybody Act” too.

67.   Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36) 

68.   Cursing your father or mother (20:9)

This one is a big deal. It’s punishable by death.

Just like man sex.

Curse your mom, you might as well be gay. Creation Science don’t lie, Folks. Because lying would get you shot in the head. Think about it.

69.   No marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)

70.   Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11)

Kind of takes all the fun out of the clergy, doesn’t it?

Ah well, there’s always the money.

71.   Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)

72.   Working on the Sabbath (23:3)

73.   Blasphemy (24:14)

Another death sentence and just how certain are you really that your interpretation of the Bible is correct?

Are you willing to risk a bullet in the head? Summary execution by any random Christian on the street?

Are you really?

What if somebody shoots you down for blasphemy, but the crowd misunderstands and thinks you’re gay? Do they all go to hell for bearing false witness?

74.   Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)

Wait, what?

If a Christian inflicts an injury, kills somebody else’s animal (even by accident), or kills a person – they must be punished in the same fashion.

So, if you kill a gay person for being gay, you must be killed the same way, then the guy who kills you must be killed, then that guy must be killed…

Okay, it’s just me, right?

75.   Selling land permanently (25:23)

Again, I don’t think God understands capitalism, but who am I to argue?

And finally, 76.   Selling an Israelite as a slave (25:42)

All the way down here at the bottom. Oh, um one other thing, uh, don’t sell any Israelites. That’s bad. Touching a squirrel is worse, sure, right up there with sucking a dick. But after that, well, you know. Also, you can sell anybody else into slavery, that’s cool. But no Israelites. Got it?

Quite the list, isn’t it?

And that’s just one book of the Bible.

How many Christians adhere to these rules?

How many?  

Tell you what, when Christians start living up to their own rules, under penalty of death, maybe they can tell the rest of us what to do.

Until then, their religion is free to take its version of Sharia law and go smite itself.


If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit.
- Leviticus 35:37


  1. I think Susan B. Anthony said it rather well:

    "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

    I can't do better than that, I'm not even going to try.

  2. I was having this exact conversation just a few days ago. Of course, yours is so much more entertaining. Thank you, Jim. As usual, your way with words has made my evening so very enjoyable!

  3. No comments?


    OK - I get to start.

    Only one phrase that I know fits this - I believe it comes from Leon Uris' Battle Cry (but I last read it in the early 1970s so easily could be wrong.)

    Amen and pass the ammunition.

    1. from Wikipedia: "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" is an American patriotic song written by Frank Loesser and published as sheet music in 1942 by Famous Music Corp. The song was a response to the attack on Pearl Harbor that marked United States involvement in World War II.

  4. When I read "metal gods" I wasn't exactly thinking a giant Jesus....I was thinking more like Deep Purple. I apologize.

    1. I thought of the Futurama episode where Bender is the Metal Lord to a tiny civilization, as well as the one where he has the giant pharoh statue built, "Remember me!"

    2. I'm wondering about all those folks with their bronze, brass, silver or gold crucifixes with "Jesus" on them, that they clutch to pray with ...

    3. I was going Robert Plant and Jimmy Page, but I'm old.

  5. Jim,
    You know those theocrats only read the Reader's Digest version of the bible, or maybe it was Cliff's Notes. Brilliant, as always.

  6. Brilliant, as always--thank you!

  7. Well. When you lay Levticus out THAT way, it sounds pretty ludicrous, don't it?

    Maybe I need new hearing aids.

    1. Newts. god hates newts. And you are supposed to go 90 feet outside of town to crap.

  8. *wipes tears from eyes* I almost peed myself laughing so hard. X-D I think I'm just gonna drop this link on every forum topic I run across where a fundy is going on about why gays should be outlawed. LMAO

  9. Jim, you had me near pissing myself again. But seriously, I want to see the line of christians killing each other one after the other. Maybe we could sell it as a reality show.

  10. The gods humans worship are creations of their desires. Virtually always, the gods are created in the image of the worshipper. If you want insight into the inner being of an individual, ask that person to describe in detail the God that is the center of his or her life.

    In the case of atheists and agnostics, it may be harder to learn insight as to the inner being of that person. One might need to talk witht he person and listen to what they say they believe to be moral.

  11. Waiting for the lame excuses from the neoconsevachristians...

  12. This Christian whole heartily agrees. Well said, Mr. Wright.

  13. Re #14: Baptists are one of the more anti-alcohol-in-communion denominations. Lutherans and Episcopalians generally aren't. (And I find it funny in retrospect that the communion wine in a lot of Lutheran churches is Manischevitz.)

    1. I thought it was The Methodists!

    2. Last I heard Methodists are still using Welch's grape juice. Although our group uses cut up home made bread instead of little cubes of Wonder Bread. the tiny tot of grape juice wasn't so bad, but sponge bread?

    3. For Episcopalians, it's "Whenever three or four are gathered in My name, there will be a fifth."

    4. No, no, no! I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. The REAL saying is, "Get four of us together and you'll always find a fifth at hand."

  14. Too bad there wasn't a commandment stating all Christians must read Stonekettle Station. THAT would be righteous!

  15. First thing, first: "it’s number on one the list and you’d hate to see an entire church damned to hell for a contaminated batch."

    Otherwise, excellent as always. A tastefully witty twist on a favorite argument that seems too often ignored by those who most need to listen.

    C.L. Cullen

  16. Thank goodness we give so much money to Israel. Keeps us in good standing.

  17. That was a great read. Funny as hell and at the same time it makes a very good point. Thanks Jim

  18. Also feel a bit weird ticking "you are my god" after that particular rant

    1. Yeah, so did I. But I figure Jim is more likely to be of fine wood instead of a metal god.

  19. Well done, Sir. Very well done. :)

  20. [sigh...] Jim, you always make me feel better when the insanity in this country is getting me down!

  21. When I read this, I saw my username; Earl. I'm not the Earl you quoted though, even if I'm from Canada.

    I've enjoyed your writings, and after reading this, I have to say it's a damn shame more people like you weren't in the Canadian Navy when I joined it. I might have stayed, instead of being driven out due to some slight concern about being tossed overboard if my shipmates had clued into my sexuality.

    Funny thing, none of them ever interested me. I don't have a uniform fetish, I suppose. Or I really didn't like bigots, even then.

    Oh, do you have to be a citizen of California to propose one of those ballot thingies? I wouldn't mind submitting your idea to the process.

    1. We are all bigots, only about different issues!

    2. bigot
      noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
      a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
      "don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"
      synonyms: dogmatist, partisan, sectarian, prejudiced person

      Doesn't describe me. "There is only one thing of which I'm intolerant, that's intoerance" E.W.Hockley. Thanks Dad.

    3. Do you have to be a citizen of California? Hell No! Your $200 is as good as anyone else's!

  22. OMG(oddess) that was flipping hilarious.

  23. With respect, the restrictions outlined in Leviticus are reserved for the Israelites at the time. They do not apply to Christians at all. In the new Testament, Jesus said that Christians should avoid blood, and should love one another as they would be loved. All of the Mosaic Laws were no longer valid. That love thing pretty much covers all of human behavior, and I might point out that most Christians pretty much fail at it. As for the blood, red meat is not a problem, but blood pudding is. Killed animals must be bled out properly. Even that has a "legal" way out, since one is not supposed to question how something served to you was killed. You're just not supposed to knowingly ingest blood.

    If one studies the bible carefully, one learns that most of those today who claim to be Christians, really are not. I could get into this deeper, but this is not the forum for it. I just wanted to point out that Leviticus is not relevant to today's true believers. Instructive, perhaps, but not relevant.

    1. the restrictions outlined in Leviticus are reserved for the Israelites at the time. They do not apply to Christians at all.

      No kidding? Imagine that.

    2. Actually, Jesus said that every single bit of the old law still applied:

      "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

      And this is repeated in various ways in the New Testament:


      This makes perfect sense since Jesus (if such a person actually ever existed) was a jew, and so of course he was bound to the laws of his religion. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that 2000 years ago, there was not a Torah in every household, and literacy wasn't as widespread as it is today. The idea of just anybody being able to pick up a Bible and read it cover to cover is fairly recent in the history of religion. The priesthood in 33 AD probably cherry picked their holy texts every bit as much as today's churches of all stripes do.

    3. Funny how that book is still in the Bible then isn't it?

      You might also want to look at Matthew 5:17 Jesus saying ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

    4. If Leviticus only applies to Israelites, then why is it cited so often by Christians as justification for abhorring and discriminating against homosexuals? You'd think that at least their preachers would clue them in, but most often it's the preachers screaming the loudest against the people they love to hate. (Jim is saying the same thing. I'm just translating from "sarcasm" to "you're clueless, Anonymous".)

    5. lol.

      Yeah, funny thing, that, eh Jim? I had a strangely similar conversation with an acquaintance who first asserted that every word of the Bible is as applicable today as it was 2,000+ years ago, and then, when I replied "So, Leviticus? " said that oh, no, certain parts don't apply any more.

      I'm a recovered Catholic, so I identify as "atheistic agnostic secular humanist" when someone forces me to take a stand. And speaking as a recovered Catholic, either Leviticus still applies, or the Bible is *not* uniformly relevant any more.

    6. Actually, with respect - the "red words" make it clear that Jesus decidedly did NOT render Mosaic law invalid. Matthew 5:17-20:

      17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
      18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
      19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
      20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

      It's a bit of a pickle, really. If, as it says above, not one jot or tittle shall be passed from the law, we're all in violation one way or another. And if, as you state, they ARE abolished (despite the above), "shoot the gays" laws are invalid. What to do, what to do... *grin*

    7. I'm not versed in Biblical exegesis, but I'm pretty sure that this passage means that the old laws ARE still valid:

      17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

    8. Mark 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…"

      Jesus said that about the Old Testament, so the whole "this doesn't apply to us because Jesus only preached about peace and love" argument is bullshit. Your own mythology says you're wrong.

    9. Very true, but if these are no longer applicable to Christians, then the prohibitions on male-male sex are also gone.

    10. re Leviticus -- as the title shows, it is the rule book for the Levites; not only does it not apply to rank and file Israelites, it is meant very specifically and exclusively for the priestly tribe of Israel, the tribe of Levi. As the keepers of the temple they were expected to adhere to a much stricter set of rules. The various prohibition about touching dead animals, etc. make more sense if they apply only to the priests who are supposed to remain ceremoniously pure.

      re "commandments" -- this is a human term, not one that God used. God spoke out loud from atop Mt Sinai and offer a covenant (i.e., contract) that the Israelites were free to accept or reject; if they wanted Him to be their God, they would fulfill certain obligations. Those obligations are referred to by humans as "commandments" (translated thus by people working in service of a king, so it's fair to question their accuracy).

      re Jesus fulfilling the Law & Prophets -- you can't fulfill a law as it is open ended, you can fulfill a contract. Jesus's death on the cross was the fulfillment and the end of the old covenant; the new covenant "love one another as I have loved you" replaced it.

      Finally, after the resurrection, God sent Peter a dream telling him three times to kill & eat an unclean animal, Peter refused three times, God said three times that nothing He made was unclean (three being the number of completeness in Jewish tradition). Peter awoke to hear Gentiles knocking at the front gate to ask about Jesus and realized God was telling him that the old kosher laws were done away with and even the Gentiles (who were ritualistically unclean) were His children.

    11. buzz- While your discussion of semantics is slightly interesting, the only way it adds to the discussion seems to say that Leviticus doesn't apply to the general population, only the priestly class. In other words, there shouldn't be homosexual priests, but it's okay for everyone else. Boy, did the Catholics and closeted Protestants get that one backwards. So you're agreeing that all of these fire-and-brimstone preachers and homophobes are wrong?

    12. Jerry A. -- Yup. Nothing in the OPT applies to us today: Different time, different place, different culture. The fact that we have modern parallels to certain OT laws only proves this point: Laws that are retained or re-created are done so because they have a valid purpose today (we want to restrict homicides, theft, perjury, etc.). Laws that have no purpose today (multi-fabric clothing, or prohibitions against same sex relations) are discarded, new laws covering new circumstances (mandatory seatbelts, f'r instance) are created.

    13. Any biker wearing 'red wings' is in really big trouble; or anyone else who has accidentally licked is wifes pussy at that time of the month.


    14. Jesus cleared ALL things for Christians to eat. He said "It isnt what goes into a mouth, it is what comes out, for out of the heart the mouth speaks. And the reason Leviticus is being used is because Leviticus is used to abhor gay people so if you are going to use Leviticus to damn someone then you best live by it or be quiet.

    15. I read a good interpretation of the quote " ..I came to fulfill the law....".Basically it was too difficult and disructive to throw out the old laws so Jesus came to fulfill (fill out and expand) the laws to include "treat others well." Focusing on treating others well and using all those other rules as backup.
      George Carlin has a great skit where he gets the 10 commandments down to 2.

  24. Wow, and you didn't even get to the New Testament, which is where the Christ in Christian was talking personally to Christians. For example, Luke 6:35: "But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil." I.e., He is saying that a Christian's duty is to be kind to the unthankful and to the evil, so even *if* you believe that Teh Ghey is Teh Evulz, Christians are supposed to be kind to them according to Jesus effin' Christ. But good luck getting *that* written into law!

    1. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

    2. Anonymous -- not to hijack Jim's comment thread but
      (a) the word translated into English as "commandments" (done so by translators working for kings; go figure) is not the most accurate translations of the original Hebrew; they refer to the 10 Commandments as the 10 Words (i.e., Decalogue) or 10 Maxims
      (b) the Decalogue was not a set of orders but by God's own description (remember, He spoke them out loud from atop Mt Sinai and only called Moses up later to get the tablets) are terms in a contract; contracts are mutual agreements that both parties are free to offer / accept / reject as they wish, and if the Israelites hadn't wanted to accept God's offer, God would let them go their way and He would have gone His
      (c) The part about fulfilling is what Jesus did on the cross; "It is finished" referred not just to his terrestrial life part 1 but to the covenant (contract) made at Sinai
      (d) To hammer the point home about the covenant being fulfilled, God sent Peter a dream in which God three times told Pete to kill and eat unclean animals, Pete refused three times because they were unclean, and three times God told him nothing He made was unclean (Peter awoke just as some Gentiles came knocking at the front gate asking about Jesus and was savvy enough to realize God was letting him know they were His children, too)

  25. Entertaining as always. Thank you, Jim! But I have a confession to make. I am Christian, and moreover I am from Indiana. That doesn't mean I cannot laugh--and cry--and the ignorance and misunderstanding on both sides of this particular divide.

    Governor Pence chose poorly. I'm curious to see how the local Republicans intend to "clarify" their bill. I am interested to see if they surrender or dig themselves deeper. One of the things I find most amusing is that the language in the bill that was drafted was taken directly from federal law. Supporters of the bill convinced the governor that that made it safe. (It obviously did not.) There were plenty of warnings about the bill being to vague and potentially inflammatory. I want to see if the patches really improve the bill at all or make it worse.

    As a Christian, I'm disappointed in many religious individuals who don't know the Bible. I like the way you have educated the folks here on the finer points of The Law (i.e. Biblical law). I don't think your analysis is valid biblically, in that most Christians believe correctly that Leviticus does not apply to them. The sodomy rule applies, as I understand it, only to the Jewish priesthood--male members only (pun intended). I view any effort on behalf of the religious right to legislate morality to be misguided. If they knew their Bible well enough, they should know those rules do not apply. Those proposing such bills are ignorant and hypocritical. I appreciate you calling them on it. May God continue to bless you with wit and charm.

    1. Setting aside the minor factoid that the Federal RFRA was arguably a different law for a different time, the Indiana law that was signed has critical differences. This is especially true post-Citizens United and Hobby Lobby. Personally, I'd read the statutes, but if that's asking too much, see below.


    2. The Indiana law is much more broad than the federal law. And, as Jesse said, you have to consider context and intent as well.

  26. I spewed coffee reading this one. My husband was wondering why I was coughing and choking while I was laughing. He's reading your blog now on his computer and chuckling to himself.

  27. Brilliantly written once again, thank you for the laughs and for the thoughtful pause.

  28. My daughter just laughed at me, because I actually, honestly, for the first time ever, "squeeeeee"d while reading that. And now I have to go google "hoopoe".

    1. Someone has probably beaten me to it but, yeah, me too. Turns out :


      The national bird of Israel FWIW. Strange looking crested dove-y /pigeon-y avian dinosaurs they are.

    2. Yes, but what the hell is a Molock?

    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

      A.N.other Fire God that lost out to The Israelites one!

  29. This was great Mr. Wright. Now if someone can explain to me how our elected Republicans can call themselves Christians but follow Ayn Rand?

    1. I believe the phrase "hypocritical lying bastards" covers it pretty well. I'm not sure if Jim has used that exact phrase, but only because he's a polite gentleman and a scholar (at least for a sailor). :)

    2. Jesus answers that here in Matt;
      True and False Disciples
      21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

      New International Version (NIV)

  30. it is always the case that the Christians complain about being persecuted when they are prevented from doing the persecution themselves.

  31. I vote that we temporarily disband Christianity and, for the time being, rather than worship God, we give Dog a shot at the title.

    1. How about we just get rid of religion entirely and concentrate on evolving into a better species?

  32. "I think this is as good of place as any to get this hate right out into the open."

    Needs a letter a about here ^ in case this helps.

    Also : Spot on! Ticking the "You are my God' box has never seemed quite so apt.

  33. This post was pretty darn awesome.

  34. Well done, Jim! I've been waiting in gleeful anticipation for you to take on the hypocrisy of xians because I just knew it'd be epic. And it is!

    Pete Moulton

  35. Great fisk of Leviticus, keep up the good work. I am also encouraged when I see
    thoughtful responses here from self-identified Christians. Maybe the rest of us are
    not totally screwed after all.

  36. Does this mean if I'm a baker I can't refuse to bake a cake for the brother/sister wedding? Or only if the sister is a transvestite?

    1. I think it means you can go ahead and bake the cake, but on no account can you touch it.

    2. And whatever you do, don't burn that damn yeast!

  37. Apparently Leviticus, when it comes to sex and gender, has had a long lasting influence for Christian tradition. No one has paid attention to the food and clothing rules. But the practice of women waiting forty days after childbirth before a purification ceremony is still done in traditionalist Catholic churches and in some Eastern Orthodox churches. I have met women who had to go through that years ago - and they are still angry at the demeaning message.

  38. Jim,
    I posted in a similar vein a few days ago on my FB page, and said that I wished the rapture would happen already so the rest of us could get on with our lives down here in peace. Someone responded by attaching the following story. I forgot how good Flannery O'Connor was. http://producer.csi.edu/cdraney/archive-courses/summer06/engl278/e-texts/oconner_revelation.pdf

  39. I think you left out bacon cheeseburgers

    But I have coffee now and probably shouldn't read it again.

  40. You people should honestly do a little more research on these topics before posting false information for people to read. Leviticus is part of the canon. Aka Moses' law. Aka Old Testament law. Aka no longer relevant in today's society. When Jesus was crucified the veil in the temple was ripped from top to bottom, thus negating all Old Testament laws. If we still followed Old Testament laws we would literally have to count the number of steps we took on the sabbath in order to not over do our workload for the day. Another fact that atheist and Christians alike fail to understand is that all sin is equal in God's eyes. Whether you sleep with a man, kill a man, tell a small lie to your parents to involve trouble, or even have an adulterous thought in your head about someone, they are all seen as equal sins in God's eyes. I am a Christian. And I have gay friends, just as I have friends who are liars. I see no difference in the two. They both sin. Just as I sin. And the sin amounts to the same. We all fall short of the Glory of God. It's in our humanly sin nature. We are born with it. All we can do is try our best to avoid such sins and confess to God. None of us are deserving. Some people just take things to the extreme

    1. But, Landon, Jesus never said anything about same sex relations. He said not to divorce for any reason other than adultery, and he said that eunuchs were lucky that they didn't have sexual desires to distract them from loving God, but that was about it as far as sexual matters were concerned. Oh, he did say regarding eunuch that some are made eunuchs and some are born that way, so I'm guessing if he doesn't see a problem with straight sex and non-sex that he must not have a problem with gay sex since he didn't mention it.

      Paul mentions what people interpret as referring to gay sex twice, but in both cases he uses a word he made up, not the common Greek word for same sex relations; further the context indicates he was referring to male prostitution, or masters who ordered their male slaves to comply with their wishes. What everybody leaves out of Paul's laundry list of sins in Romans 1 is that he starts Romans 2 by saying in effect, "How dare you criticize anybody for doing those things when what you do is far worse?"

    2. hold on Landon, if you are going to take away all the OT fire and brimstone you aren't going to leave the evangelicals much of their toy chest to play with. I've been in their churches, I've heard their sermons. They don't agree with you one little itty bit.

    3. But if Leviticus no longer applies because Jesus, why is it that so many Christians insist that it DOES apply when they want to condemn homosexuality?

      You cannot eat your cake and have it to. Either ALL of Leviticus is void or NONE of is it.

  41. You people should honestly do a little more research on these topics before posting false information for people to read. Leviticus is part of the canon. Aka Moses' law. Aka Old Testament law. Aka no longer relevant in today's society. When Jesus was crucified the veil in the temple was ripped from top to bottom, thus negating all Old Testament laws. If we still followed Old Testament laws we would literally have to count the number of steps we took on the sabbath in order to not over do our workload for the day. Another fact that atheist and Christians alike fail to understand is that all sin is equal in God's eyes. Whether you sleep with a man, kill a man, tell a small lie to your parents to involve trouble, or even have an adulterous thought in your head about someone, they are all seen as equal sins in God's eyes. I am a Christian. And I have gay friends, just as I have friends who are liars. I see no difference in the two. They both sin. Just as I sin. And the sin amounts to the same. We all fall short of the Glory of God. It's in our humanly sin nature. We are born with it. All we can do is try our best to avoid such sins and confess to God. None of us are deserving. Some people just take things to the extreme

    1. Speak for yourself, Landon, I am worthy and I was not born a "sinner" and you have truly lost the ability to think rationally if you honestly believe that killing a man is just as bad as fucking one! I mean we've all had shitty sex at least once in our lives, gay or straight, so by your way of thinking we would be just as unworthy of living life as a decent human being if we just killed those that we felt did not do a good job of said fucking, instead of just not fucking them again or just complaining that they were a lousy lay? Jesus jumped up christ, if everyone thought/felt/believed like you there would be a lot of dead mother fuckers out there getting in the way of all you righteous sinners scrambling to be the first one in line to kiss ass in church every Sunday, huh?

  42. From the very start, ie the Plymouth colony, 'Religious Freedom' has always meant, for those intolerant Christian colonists, and never meant anything else for their descendants, the freedom NOT to have even to THINK about, much less to be confronted with, any other religion whatever. They've been at it from the start. Religious Freedom for them is precisely the same as it is for fundamentalist Islamists: you can choose any religion, or no religion, so long as the religion you choose is my religion, defined on my terms, and you never go near 'no religion' at all.


  43. I've been wondering what form your opinion on this subject would take, and now that I've seen it, I love you! We will get much dinner-table conversation out of your list and your commentary.
    I truly believe that by demanding the limited-language RFRA, the homophobes have brought the conversation out into the open, and they are not going to like the result of the revelations. Their defenses of the Act have shocked and amazed me.
    The other thing that riles me about the RFRA is that it opens the door to all sorts of ways to be offended into rebellion. I already know of the pharmacists who won't sell birth control or abortion pills. Now we have the "no-wedding-cake" set. What's next, someone not liking the color of my hair? (I'm a ginger)
    Stay healthy Jim. You just tipped an apple cart over, and there may be repercussions!

    1. I've heard talk of taking it in the other direction, with the Church of Cannabis, and Wiccans talking about ritual drug use and dancing naked.

  44. Absolutely fucking awesome! Bravo, sir!

  45. Love this! I could throw a dinner party with this as the topic of conversation (what? converse? at a PARTY???) and have a great many laughs. Thanks for making me feel more human today. I'm publishing my comment as anonymous because I don't have a URL or any of the rest of those things.

  46. Jim, as a non-fanatical Christian....thanks for this. Well-written as always, and humorous--I found myself cracking up several times.

    Sadly it seems that Earl really doesn't have a clue about US laws and such, but...well, I can't afford to be angry at him. I can (and am) angry at the fanatics who cloak themselves with the word "Christian" while calling for actions that are anything but. No, Christians are not being repressed here in the US--and maybe someone should inform these loudmouths that in the US, you have the right to believe--or not to believe. It's in that lil' ol' document called the Constitution.

    I do wonder if any of them have ever read the thing.

  47. Great read! Best laugh I've had in a long time! We can always count on Jim Wright to distill the issue to it's finest, most basic lunacy. I'll be sharing this everywhere "religious bigotry in the guise of freedom" rears it's ugly head.

    1. As a practicing areligious person, I see your comments as edifying, to those who care about such things as religion. As for me, fodder for the snarky comments I am guilty of.

  48. I cannot wait to read about Christians being denied services because they are Christian. They will freak the fuck out!!! They'll act the spoiled little children they are - stomp, and cry, and wail. Fun times to be sure.

    Chris in S. Jersey

  49. *Sigh* correction to number 53: the earth is only 6,000 years old, so "10,000 years" is not possible. Dude, seriously? On the "real" comment side, though, I've often wondered how a thinking person can think the "oh, well, we're going to just ignore all that Old Testament stuff now. We were just kidding" is somehow logical. ("New! Improved! A New Testament! Try it; you'll like it.") I also have issues around the first commandment, then the making-Jesus-be-God thing. How does any of this makes sense?

  50. re #54: Mixing fabrics in clothing. Maybe Alaska doesn't have the same need for light cotton / polyester blends, but I can't think of a single Southern Baptist church I ever attended as a child that would have all of its members breaking this law.

  51. Good thing there isn't a law against laughing till you piss yourself..

  52. I was just reading this book review: http://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-God-Corporate/dp/0465049494

    It's always amazing to me how people re-write history and even not that long ago history, to further they're personal agendas. And today's Christian fundamentalist for the most part, have absolutely no clue about how their views and beliefs have been most cynically shaped in the last 50 years.

  53. FYI, a hoopoe is a bird. It has orange feathers with black and white on its wings. It makes a "hoo hoo" sound which is very cute. We have them in South Africa. And BTW, thanks for the summing up of Leviticus. Amazing how many people throw only certain verses around, ain't it?

  54. Mary Beth van der ZeeApril 2, 2015 at 1:21 PM

    Plastic Jesus and Magnetic Mary are riding on the dashboard of my car. (with thanks to John Prine). Christians really only have 2 rules. Love God. Love your neighbor. You can choose how you love God/SpaghettiMonster/etc. My job is to love my neighbors. ALL my neighbors. Well, that was easy.

  55. Did anyone else notice that it does not forbid a man to have sex with his daughter or stepdaughter, even though it specifies granddaughter? I read through twice to make sure, and the closest I saw was 'sex with a woman and her daughter or granddaughter'

  56. It's entertaining, but this line of making fun of Christians using Leviticus makes the round every few years - it even made an episode of West Wing at one point. It's a straw man.

    Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament law, and the grace of the cross covers the letter of the law and greatly simplifies things. If anyone is actually interested here, which I doubt, read the book of Galatians - will take you about 10 minutes.

    Three additional things:

    1) If you're asking why some Christians believe that homosexual acts are not good for us, Romans 1 is the reason why biblically, there are other passages as well, but that one is in there. The problem here is that some of Levitical laws, we really want to keep. That annoying bit about not murdering each other for example - that should probably carry over - even though it was penned by bronze age yahoos too.

    2) In my mind, Jim makes a fair point in saying that people who are trying to force you to adhere to their version of morality are out of bounds. I agree... I even would argue that God agrees. He allows people to do what they want, even if that is a slew of bad decisions, or good ones, or a mixture of both. You are king of your own soul it turns out. It may not seem like it from the press coverage, but most Christians believe that.

    3) The problem with this argument, on both sides, by the way - is folks trying to bully each other into agreeing with them. That never works, so please cut it out.

    The catalytic events that prompted these laws were gay couples, looking to be offended... and when they were, they filed a legal suit against a small business.

    In notable cases, there was a baker, or a photographer, or some similar service person who believes that certain kinds of sex are prohibited by their religious beliefs. Because of that, they don't want to participate directly in a celebration of that activity. It would be like asking a Muslim caterer to provide pork for your Down with Islam event. And when he refuses, to sue him for discrimination.

    That wouldn't make you a champion of civil liberty, it would just make you a dick.

    But in this case, gay marriage is popular in our culture now, so it gets a pass.

    I don't just don't think I personally would want to sue people and actively work to hurt their business and income, because they didn't agree with me about something, even about something important. I can get a cake somewhere else.

    There is a difference between saying, "you think what you want, and I'll think what I want" and "think what I want, or I'll drag your ass to court."

    The Indiana law is saying that you can't do that and win your lawsuit, unless real harm can be demonstrated, or that there is a legit gov't interest involved, like public safety, etc... the only difference between this and laws about religious freedom that have existed for hundreds of years is that it is saying that a for profit business can do this too. It's only saying that if they get sued, they can say in their defense, "Your Honor, it's against my religious beliefs to comply with this request." It doesn't mean they'll win in court, it just means that defense can be on the table.

    But the response to the poor sclubs at Memories Pizza is every bit as hateful and aggressive as anything I've seen from Westboro. If that group is on the right side of history, I surely hope that their methods are not. Living in a pluralistic society means we live with folks that don't agree with us and we make room for honor and respect and courtesy.

    It does not mean I have to agree with everything you say, do or believe and support that with my business.

    1. A Muslim caterer would not sell pork to anybody. Following your logic the correct analogy is taking a baker to court because he would not provide pork for your wedding.

    2. Anonymous, your logic is flawed.

      Using your example, cakes are the baker's stock in trade. The baker bakes cakes for some people but not others based not on his religious belief but on theirs. This is discrimination.

      The Muslim caterer doesn't provide pork to anybody based not on their religious beliefs but on his. He treats everybody the same way. This is not discrimination.

      See the difference?

      Your argument is invalid. Fail. Try again.

    3. Please explains how this differs from not allowing blacks to sit at the lunch counter because your religion thinks races should sit separately. Oh -- race is a legally protected category today? Then how about people with two different eye colors? Truly a mark of the devil and I wouldn't want them in my business establishment.

    4. "Please explains how this differs from not allowing blacks to sit at the lunch counter because your religion thinks races should sit separately."

      Easily. It's a false analogy and so it doesn't apply. The way to make it work as a meaningful difference would be to posit a religion that forces *everyone* to sit at the back of the bus regardless of who they are. Your failure to present an analogy that fits the actual way that actual things work in the actual world is a pretty good indication that you are too intellectually and morally bankrupt to come up with a valid analogy to support the point you seem to think you are making.

    5. "The catalytic events that prompted these laws were gay couples, looking to be offended... and when they were, they filed a legal suit against a small business."

      Then please, explain what a couple is to do when every business in their town which offers this service refuses them on religious grounds.

    6. Jim,

      you asked me to try again, so I did - but the post didn't appear... either I did something wrong or you felt like the post shouldn't be approved, so I'll try again. If this doesn't post I'll just move along. Thanks...

      The analogy was meant to compare someone asking someone else to participate in activity that would violate their religious beliefs. In this case, the baker would also refuse to participate in an event celebrating a sexual relationship she felt was wrong - and she would do that across the board. She isn't singling out gay people at all.

      She would also refuse to cater a heterosexual orgy, or a porn shoot for similar reasons. From learning a bit about the back story, it really was about her belief - and not the belief of the potential clients.

      In that light, this really wasn't about gay - it just seems that way because it was the gay couple who decided to sue her. It was about her personal religious belief that sexuality should work a certain way and choosing not to participate in the public message that disagreed with her.

      She served gay people, knowingly and courteously, all the time - she has no issues there. Perhaps a better analogy would be a Muslim caterer refusing to do an event where an art gallery was posting mocking cartoons of Mohammad. He would probably refuse, and in my mind, I don't have any issue with that.

      Anonymous, you asked about the difference between this and a religious view that thinks races should not sit together - and my answer is the level of participation involved.

      The baker wasn't trying to stop their wedding. She wasn't trying to hinder their marriage in any way after the wedding. She wasn't trying to keep gay people from sitting together at lunch. She wasn't even telling them they were wrong about their view of sexuality. She just said that she wasn't comfortable publicly endorsing what they were doing - that isn't the same thing at all.

      Take gay and Christian out of it for a minute.

      In a pluralistic society you're going to have groups that disagree about important things. If group A and group B are at odds, there has to be some level of latitude when it comes to reasonable expectations for the groups serving each other in business, or interacting in society.

      In this case, group A asked group B for service and group A refused, saying that it would violate their own religious beliefs to comply and offered an alternative vendor.

      So here is the legal question. When should group A get to refuse service on legitimate grounds? And when should group B get to sue group A to legally force them violate their religious belief?

      And by way, Memories Pizza in Indiana hasn't actually discriminated against anyone, ever. They were asked a hypothetical question by a reporter... and have been threatened and no kidding harassed - for an imaginary situation - that has not happened, and never will happen.

      Even if they are a 1000 times wrong, let's leave the punishment for actual crimes committed in the real world - can't we at least agree to go that far?

  57. the sun came out with your latest piece for this old lady - so much she has shared it around the world (isn't that what we're supposed to do as "good" Christians - spread good cheer - not to be confused mind you with the CINO's - Christian in Name Only - and we won't go into what their daily nut mission is)

    After days of the over saturation of all the craziness with Indiana's political asinine CINO new law and rhetorical nonsense/back peddling/basically oh shit we really messed up and that's NOT what we meant *wink wink* - your piece NAILED it to the proverbial wall - or maybe cross depending of where your mind would like to take it. - to each his own.

    Jim, all those 1950's childhood years of endless hours/days/weeks/months of being indoctrinated, groomed and attempts at being brained washed in rural backwaters of midwest America by tent revival preachers, then Church Preachers (first the Methodist, then Baptist, then Lutheran, then blah blah blah Mr. Bible thumping Holy Man), and told all the 'gospel truths and laws' of how to be "the only acceptable Christian according to Leviticus" as a child. Then maturing and growing up to be as teenager in 1960's and 1970's in California and bent on rebellion and shouting at the top of one's lungs that those guys must of been some kind of wacked nut job, have finally been exorcised so eloquently with your piece. Justice has been finally seen the light of day and has been served.

    Since discovering your writings, I haven't felt so mind free since the burning of the bra's demonstration/sit in on the top of the gym building in High School in the early 1970's. Who ever says laughter isn't the best medicine for what ails you needs to rethink that little illogical thought process.

    BTW, My daughter wanted to know what amused me last nite as I was rolling with laughter, so she read your piece....ALOUD. Now I will be honest and hand on "a" good book admit I raised her to question everything in life - must of been that lil rebel in me. Her late father's contribution was thinking wayyyyyyy outside the box with a touch of smart azz for a twist. So as you can imagine the vocal reading was quite entertaining.

    End result..... the race was then on for the closest bathroom in the house as the bladders raced to contain themselves as consequences for two women with healthy fits of laughter... thank goodness for a 2 bathroom house.

    thanks again Jim .....

    1. and the chuckles just go on and on http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/wiccans-say-indiana-religious-freedom-law-opens-the-door-to-polygamy-nude-rituals-at-the-capitol/

  58. http://www.markhancoxbirdphotography.co.uk/filestore/demo/thumbs/thumb_3803-hoopoe_2011.jpg

    It is a Bee-eater. Lovely bird and very common in The Near East.

  59. About Sodom and Gomorrah: “As I live,” says the Lord God, “neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done. Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.” (Ezekiel 16: 48-50)

    Seems pretty clear: S&G were wiped (at least metaphorically) because they were greedy, arrogant and mean. Oh, dear. That doesn't bode well, does it?

    The arbitrary nature of elevating of some archaic social laws over others (and over general spiritual principles) has always bemused me. Christ is asked directly to set priorities when it comes to God's Law. The conversation went like this:

    'Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." — Matthew 22:35-40

    (Or as the great Jewish theologian, Hillel put it: "This is the entire law. All the rest is commentary.")

    In any event, it is appalling how the commandments emphasized in both the Torah and Evangel as being THE BIG ONES are shattered daily by people alleging to follow other "commentary" seemingly chosen at random.

    This emphasis, unsurprisingly, carries through to the Qur'an, as well, in one of Muhammad's earliest revealed verses: "Hast thou observed him who belieth religion? That is he who repelleth the orphan, and urgeth not the feeding of the needy. Ah, woe unto worshippers who are heedless of their prayer; who would be seen (at worship) yet refuse small kindnesses!" — Qur’an, Surih 107:1-7

    You would think with that much repetition, we'd get it by now.

  60. You are such a bad ass. I just love you. I love anybody that can make me laugh till I snort. That was great! I don't think I've gained control yet. But when I do, I'm going to read it again.

    What the hell is a hoopoe? My favorite new word. I promise to use it everyday for a week.

    Damn it Jim Wright, I want you cloned.

  61. Greg - ETC(SW) USN - RetiredApril 2, 2015 at 4:02 PM

    Geez, I had no idea my ancestors caused so much trouble down the way.

    Greg Levy (ie a Levite, somewhere back in time).

    1. Our ancestors (also a Levite) never caused so much trouble, it is the people who have stolen our heritage and used it incorrectly who have.

  62. Taking this away from Christians vs LGBT issues... there is more to the issue than just taking potshots at one side or the other. If I am a Jewish business person am I allowed to refuse to serve a Neo-Nazi group or is that 'discrimination'? How about if I am a Muslim printer - am I allowed to refuse to print cartoons / pictures of Mohammed on religious grounds or am I going to be forced to do so because I do not have the right to use my religious beliefs to refuse business? How about the Amish - is their shunning of modern life endangering themselves or their children? Should they be forced to forgo their religious beliefs on the grounds that they do not have the freedom of religion? Pick a religion - any religion - these laws affect them and each and every one of them should be sweating bullets their right to practice their beliefs might be taken from them.

    If people stopped getting on their high horse and thought further than the end of their own prejudices they might realise there is a bit more to this than just the simplistic conflict that is being presented. People SHOULD have the right to exercise their moral / religious choice - its called Freedom of Religion and there should be much clearer guidelines as to when doing so actually constitutes discrimination rather than simply labeling it 'discrimination' as it affects more people than just Christians vs LGBT and if people would stop getting twisted about the playing field and look at the bigger picture and think of more people than just two of the loudest players they might realise that protecting religious freedom is also important - very important - because it also affects your right to be a loud mouthed obnoxious atheist because you are "discriminatory" against those with a faith. The problem with laws is that they apply to ALL not just one group otherwise - what for it - that is a discriminatory law. So this doesn't just apply to those obnoxious narrow-minded Christians - it applies to every one. So lets leave out the inflammatory rhetoric thrown by two loudmouthed groups both of whom should know better, and let's protect everyone's right to practice what they believe, including the right not to believe.

    1. For one thing, Amish folk are required to put reflectors on their buggies if they plan to travel on public roads. Also, there is a huge debate regarding child endangerment versus religious liberty when it comes to faith healing.

    2. Anonymous, you make interesting points; however, I put Neo-Naziism and derogatory cartoons of the Prophet, and the shunning of the Amish as things that have been dealt with by law enforcement. My understanding of these things is that there is a general movement to outlaw the first two in a lot of places (including overseas), because they come to no good. The third is watched by CPS to protect children. I don't think that individual business people are expected to support something that is illegal. While I could be wrong on these examples, let's take clear ones: printing up magazines of incest, child pornography, or the like. These are the types of things that need to be reported not promulgated. Fortunately the legal system has taken care of some issues already. A big difference between things that are on the legal system's radar and the civil rights issues we have dealt with for the last few decades is that the above issues are inciting hate and abuse toward others and civil rights are about people having the ability to simply live and pay their bills.

    3. Pick nits at your leisure, but it still comes down to one thing - if you provide a particular service to the public, then you have to provide that service to all of the public, not just the portion of the public that you personally approve.

      A bakery is in business to do one thing - bake cakes. It's one thing if you're asked to bake a large, ornate tiered cake and you don't offer that service. No one is going to say that you have to add that particular product to your offerings. But if you bake ornate tiered cakes, then you have to bake that cake for anyone who wants one.

      No one is going to make the Amish give up their religion, but when they're dealing with the rest of the world, they *do* have to accommodate their religion to the public at large. As drakvl points out as an example, they're required to put reflectors on their buggies when traveling on public roads. As another example, while they would generally not use electricity or running water, they can't claim their religious principles in order to refuse to comply with modern building codes.

      And as to your "Jewish businessperson" and "Muslim printer" strawmen, I'd say that yes, in general, if they're in business, they have to provide the same services to everyone that comes in their door.

      And frankly, I'm rather tired of hearing about those poor, pitiful bakers that are clinging to their mantle of victimhood. If nothing else, do you realize that their problems aren't because they're Christian, but because they're self-righteous blowhards? It's not uncommon for a baker to turn down a commission on a large project, because there are all sorts of reasons that you could legitimately *not* be able to accept the work. But instead of being gracious or polite, these are people that wanted to prove that they're just soooo much better and more pious than the sinners that surround them.

      Even without coming up with a more polite way to decline, don't you think maybe that "I'm sorry, but because of my religious beliefs, I don't think I could do your event justice. I can suggest several other bakers that I think would do a wonderful job for you" could have gone over better than "I don't bake cakes for *your* people"?

  63. I am always interested in the Canaanite origins of such things as the dietary laws. Also the one on mixing fabrics. Almost makes one thing the wool herding peoples were protecting their livelihood from the silk merchants who may have been creeping in. But I do not look to the Bible as my guide to daily life. I know that most people do not. I look to Facebook like everybody else . Just kidding. But your piece is educational as well as a scream. I admire the Sanhedrin for trying to live with this one. Almost worse than the IRS regs which Ted Cruz derides constantly. Yeah, that Cruzer.

  64. A nice little event occurred the same day Pence threw himself on the flames.
    http://juanitajean.com/let-the-choir-say-amen/ I await the approval of exempt status and the establishment of this fine denomination. I've already joined, although I must say the communion has been in my sphere for years now.

    1. Thank you for that link! First Jim Wright and then Juanita Jean. There is hope for this country yet!

  65. Quite good, but I prefer Jesus' take down: "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".

    Granted, in this specific case it was about adultery, but it can easily be generalized to the other death sentences.

    As we mathematicians use to say: "without loss of generality ..."

  66. What's a Hoopoe? Just the fountainhead from which sprang punk rock.


    That verse proves the Bible is divinely inspired. Punk rock was promised in the Bible!
    That's why hoopoes were taboo!

  67. clearly this guy doesn't know the Bible very well

  68. Two things, one, it is my understanding from someone who is a native of the area, and a linguist by profession, the word commonly translated as sleeping with a man as one would a woman referred to using the Temple prostitutes, instead of waiting for a female to be available, men would sometimes use one of the males there. Please note, yes - TEMPLE prostitutes, not just any old whore off the street, but one provided by the Church itself. Not a common practice any more, and no where does it mention anything about people in a loving committed relationship with each other. Two, the Old Testament LAW was fulfilled by Christ, and was replaced by Grace, and two simple instructions- Love god, and Love each other. Even when it is brought down from 600+ to Ten, we couldn't obey the Law, Now, it is down to just two commandments, and we still can't seem to be able to follow directions. So yeah, all these people who want to look in the Old Testament for why people should not be gay are barking up the wrong tree, especially when they cite Sodom and Gomorrah, which were not destroyed because of homosexuality, rather, they were destroyed because the people there were so busy pursuing their own pleasures they had completely turned their backs on God, and being the Vengeful Being that He was in the Old Testament, well, He got pissed and destroyed two very happy towns.

    I have to say, I am a fan of yours and wish I could comment on your FB posts, but unfortunately you already have too many friends. So, I have to be content with responding to stuff like this. Hopefully this will give you more ammunition for the idiots out there. Forget the zombie apocalypse, how 'bout we start eliminating the Stupid, 'cause it sure seems to be taking over the world.

  69. The fact that we're all discussing this issue and the fact that "Christians" are trying to defend their un-Christian like behavior with the, "because He died on the cross for my sins, it's the least I can do," is almost too much.
    I have always wondered if any of these "Christians" have actually read the Bible... I mean Christ died on the cross to free his followers from the Old Covenant (Leviticus), meaning his followers were no longer Jews, they were Christian. That whole oversight bugs the heck out of me. Exactly why, in my mind, our forefathers saw fit NOT to base our Constitution on a book, a book that most of it's worshipers have never read or even have a basic understanding of.
    In the New Covenant (the New Testament) Jesus talks about a multitude of behaviors and how to treat one another, but never - not once does He ever address homosexuality. In fact there are 1,050 New Testament Commands and not a one speaks to homosexuality. Just food for thought.

    1. I meant to say, the fact that we're discussing this on the eve of Good Friday leading in to Easter, is almost too much.
      I lost my train of thought!

  70. Tearing the clothing was a ritual action in Canaanite religion. Some of the laws in the OT were intended to distinguish the Hebrews from the peoples around them.

  71. Hmmm-if Matthew G. McLaughlin REALLY feels that way, I wonder if he'll continue to harangue his wife for anal sex once a year (on his birthday, of course). Or will he save that for the nasty prostitutes because it's unclean? And the hoopoe is also a sandwich at Isaac's Delicatessen, a place where all the selections are named for birds. Tuna salad, cheddar cheese, bacon, and fresh tomatoes on multigrain bread.
    I'd like to know how man can lie with man as they do a woman? Isn't the plumbing different? As it is with lesbians. So no one can lie with their own sex just like they can with the opposite sex. So much for THAT restriction.
    As usual, Jim, I applaud your entertaining twist of logic and common sense with your cocktail of critique.
    Pam in PA

  72. The thing that kills me about all these bloody-minded rules is that they HAD to be have been written because some yahoo pulled some stunt. That said, you gave this pagan the giggles.

  73. Both educational and humorous. Par for the course. Thanks Jim.

  74. You will most assuredly spend eternity in hell for writing this piece. So you're invited over to my own pit of boiling sulphur for a drink. The bourbon's on me, but bring your own hoopoe.

    Yours very crankily,
    The New York Crank

  75. Fantastic post as always. But every time I read the word Christian, in my mind it became "Christian" (with the quotes) because the people who pass these sorts of laws and the ones who think these laws are ok are really anything BUT real-deal Christians. I know a few real, practicing, authentic Christians and they are giving, caring, social-justice-y people who really do practice what they preach. And they don't actually preach to others - they are too busy leading by example.

  76. Once again, and as usual... BravOH!

  77. They only need to live up to one rule -- the Golden Rule. Funny how quickly they forget it when they start telling others what to do.

  78. It's beginning to get difficult telling the difference between right wing religious zealots and assholes. It seems to be a finer and finer line as time goes on.

    1. Assholes keep shit hidden away until it's time to release it in an appropriate place. Right wing religious zealots spew their shit unceasingly where no one wants it. What Right wing religious zealots obviously need is more assholes and fewer mouths.

  79. The article mentions christian fundamentalists I like to think of them as christian extremists, like the other extremists only christian.

  80. As always, you say what needs to be said. What is the reason so many will not listen? Is it that people use their emotions, rather than their intellect? The morals produces by intellect are far superior to those produced by emotions. The death penalty and punishment for example. My emotional side just loves revenge movies. My intellectual side knows that revenge and allowing the state to commit murder is just wrong. It is also wrong to call any kind of punishment, rehab. It is revenge. How many Christians are for the death penalty and punishment? ISIS is a prefect example of where emotional religious morality can lead. Now let me hear the screams of the emotional, witch burning Christians, saying the Christians are different.

  81. Rules of bible quoting:

    Whenever a bible passage can be used to support someone's belief and bigotry, that passage is clear, stands on its own, and does not depend on any other context or special interpretation.

    Whenever someone points out any of the hundreds of bible passages showing god literally ordering or approving killing of children,
    raping of young girls, proper treatment of slaves, death penalty
    for minor infractions, and genocide, the proper response is

    (pick one or more of the following):

    1. It is taken out of context
    2. Can only be understood by special understanding of context
    3. The OT is not relevant
    4. God can't be understood by humans
    5. This is selective quoting
    6. The quoter doesn't understand the bible
    7. God didn't say that, he was "misquoted"
    8. God meant some special application, such as to Israelites or
    ancient clergy, etc.

  82. I'm rather surprised that none of the Biblical scholars opining above have noticed that the passage about charity to the poor is not from Leviticus 35, as Leviticus has but 27 chapters. It's Leviticus 25:35-37.

    It is also interesting that the passage says you should be as good to the poor of your own tribe as you would be to a stranger or a foreign traveler/visitor. Ponder on that for a while.

  83. Hey, the Christians should also have to honor the law of the Jubilee, which states that every seven years, ALL of your debt is forgiven. Did you buy a house? A car? A Rolex? Everything you bought on credit belongs to you in full, every seven years. It's in the Bible, Christians!

  84. If I am the last one to comment, this seems to me to be a good way to end it.
    Unbelievable that grown men and women would even discuss the subject of God and religion. It is obvious, to any one with half a brain, that the chances of there being a god are very slim. If there is a god, the chances of this god being anything like what man dreams up are even slimmer than there being one. Of course, when ones well being is governed by those believing this BS, it may behoove one to speak out, and give ones life if necessary, for the right to speak out.

  85. Superb piece and spot on. I've quoted and linked to it here with due acknowledgement :


    Hope that's okay, Jim.

  86. I have Hoopoes in my garden in France and they are nesting. Shame you can't make some people understand about "Creation Myths"....... because that's all they are! Mr. Blackmore seems to know so much about everything I wonder how he manages to do so much to fill his days with so much rubbish. But I love this post and might just frame it and hang it on the wall!

  87. I would just like to comment on the fact that one can be a Religious Studies Teacher and yet be Agnostic/Atheist or anything else for that matter. It is all a question of interpreting Creation Myths........ in the U.K. we teach all the major religions and their myths so that perhaps one day, there will be some comprehension and some tolerance between religions. That does not mean that there is a God, of any religion, or that we believe it it/them, it just means that we teach each religion's creation myths....... Think about that one all of you who try ramming any religion down anybody else's throat!! Freedom of religion and speech is precious!!

  88. I know I'm splitting hairs, but #39 forbids men from having sex with men "as one does with a woman". It does not forbid men having sex with men as one does with a man. You may call me "Your Exegesis-ship".

  89. I am so glad I found this!!!!! IT WAS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  90. Christians should really get rid of the Old Testament. It's for Jews, anyway and it's clearly another religion. One which prefers an eye for an eye as opposed to turning the other cheek. These are two diametrically opposed viewpoints yet the Christians insist on pointing to one or the other to prove whatever point they want to prove. I'd rather that they choose one and get on with it... and they seem to be more and more leaning towards the Torah, er, Old Testament lately.

    But it's working for them internally. They don't even notice the hypocrisy. The Old Testament *is* Shariah Law; stoning and burning and hating in general. But the New Testament is supposed to be about forgiveness and love and it's really really hard to convince us all that those two ideas go together.

    So choose one, Christians. Just try to be consistent, for once.



Comments on this blog are moderated. Each will be reviewed before being allowed to post. This may take a while. I don't allow personal attacks, trolling, or obnoxious stupidity. If you post anonymously and hide behind an IP blocker, I'm a lot more likely to consider you a troll. Be sure to read the commenting rules before you start typing. Really.