Sunday, May 20, 2012

Hypocrisy is the Handmaiden of Fascism.


In Mississippi, GOP state Rep. Andy Gipson posted a message on his Facebook page which calls for putting gays and lesbians to death.
On May 10, Gipson made the following post:
“Been a lot of press on Obama’s opinion on “homosexual marriage.” The only opinion that counts is God’s: see Romans 1:26-28 and Leviticus 20:13. Anyway you slice it, it is sin. Not to mention horrific social policy.”
Later on in the thread, Gipson posts a comment about how homosexuality is “unnatural” and causes “disease.”

According to Leviticus 20:13, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
And, apparently, he’s not made any apologies for it and has if anything, doubled down on it.
This is, to date, the very worst examples of cherry picking one’s religious beliefs - or, as it is known in the religious world, “cafeteria christianity.”  Much has been written in the atheistic blogosphere lately about this, ranging from serious, outraged posts outlining all the commandments in the Old Testament that these cafeteria christians have rejected to amusing, yet cutting satirical pieces excoriating them for the parts they conveniently ignore, yet never talk about.
Lets be very clear here.
If you are one of those people who think gays (which, by the way, includes lesbians) are an abomination, unnatural and just plain icky, and you base your opinions on the bible, you’d damn well better be one of those fundies who think that selling your daughter into slavery is ok.
Because if you don’t, you are a hypocrite.
Andy Gipson is a hypocrite, because he hasn’t promoted putting apostate christians to death, nor does he still support slavery, nor stoning adulterers to death, nor stoning people who work on Saturday (NOT SUNDAY - that’s the work of a later Pope, and isn’t the traditional Sabbath the Ten Commandments refer to!) nor killing teens who are disrespectful of their parents.
All of this, and more, is commanded in the Old Testament, yet, inexplicably, the ONLY Old Testament command christians deign to obey is the one about homosexuality!  (Besides the Ten.)
Even worse than the hypocrisy is the thought that it would be ok, in the modern 21st century America, for the GOVERNMENT to be able to execute its citizens, in violation of every principle men and women have fought and died to preserve in our Constitution, just because of a personal characteristic!  I don’t know who really made the statement about fascism (there seems to be some disagreement as to authorship) coming to America carrying a cross and being wrapped in the flag, but, dang it, THAT should be engraved above the doors of every courthouse in the US!
It’s wrong, it’s unAmerican, and it should be treated as treason.
Even Republican pollsters are telling them that they are on the wrong side of history, and are urging them to modify their views to just give up the fight if they still want to be electable.
See how damaging religion is?  If it weren’t for the bronze age biases inherent in the judeo-christian-islamic triad, none of this would be an issue, as the old world Mediterranean civilizations never had any issues with the homosexual lifestyle, in fact, often embraced it as a part of the culture.
Another post will be more about the damage religion causes, not just to parts of society, but to the whole shooting match.
Stay tuned.  First, I have to go see either The Avengers or Battleship.

3 comments:

Peachythings said...

Very well said!

Ed Haines said...

You state, "If it weren’t for the bronze age biases..." Much research seems to show that many of the bronze age people pretty much accepted homosexuality. Certainly, the earlier paleoliths accepted (I deliberately did not say tolerate) homosexuality. Only in some of the early civilizations did intolerance of sexual preference appear. It appears to me that you are right in ascribing this intolerance to the religious sects.

Robert Ahrens said...

Just because one group accepts something, doesn't keep the bias of another against it (developed during the bronze age) from being described as a bronze age bias.

That was actually my point - the other bronze age civilizations accepted it - that our acceptance of it today isn't new or unusual, and we shouldn't accept a biased viewpoint which is based on an old and out of date book.