[ the actual title of this page:]

  ( for ComputerIcon   or for   SmartPhone-Icon )
Does GOD "Hate Fags" ?

There are kudos re: this article
at bottom of page.

What makes conservative "Christians"
superior to homosexuals?

The GOP may hate Gays


What makes so-called "evangelical" Christians feel so morally superior to others?  I believe that many such people know in their hearts that they are "petty" people, i.e. the French word for "small" (intellectually, emotionally or morally, if not physically), but they try to build up their self-image by trying to tear other people down.  Sadly, many such people who have been nurtured in Christian communities have been taught ways of using the holy scriptures to view homosexuals as moral inferiors, just as their Christian forebears were taught to use those same scriptures to despise Jews, and then black people.  Every now and then such people seem compelled to prove just how "normal" heterosexuals like themselves are by brutalizing and/or killing supposedly "abnormal" homosexuals !

        Matthew Shepherd was a kind, gentle and unassuming young college student, until he crossed the path of the wrong "normal" people.  Matt was lurred into a trap by two men who pretended to be gay. He was then viciously beaten, after which he was tied, with his arms stretched out much like "the good thief" on his cross, to a ranch-style fence far from town, and left there to suffer alone, and to freeze to death.  What makes Matt's case stand out from the hundreds of other such cases is his funeral, because several dedicated so-called "Christians" went out of their way to attend his funeral in Laramie, Wyoming and to demonstrate with their signs and their shouting their firm belief that "God hates fags".  They succeeded in communicating their message of hate, not only to Matthew's family and community, but to the whole world through the television coverage they rightfully expected this funeral would receive.
HateFilled4.png         The Rev. Phelps who inspired this (and many other such demonstrations)  has dedicated his life to this "ministry", using among other tools, his internet site, where he proudly displayed a daily count of how many days Matthew Shepherd had supposedly been in hell, and not only condemned homosexuals, but all of those who didn't hate homosexuals as much as he and his church did. He even celebrated the death of Americas soldiers and all of the victims of the 9/11 tragedy as God's vengeance on America for its tolerance of homosexuality.  
P. S. Some conservatives, including Republican Congresswoman Virginia Foxx on the floor of the House, claim that because Shepherd's wallet was taken, his killing should not be considered a hate crime.
       Have you ever heard of a common thief who wasn't content to rob a victim, but who stayed around to beat that victim viciously, and then tied him to a fence, and left him there to die in agony? How silly can conservatives get!

A letter from a son who
left the Phelps family / church :

Mark Phelps wrote the following to the citizens of Topeka, Kansas, homebase for his (in)famous father.  It is printed at his request in The Capital-Journal on May 19, 1993.  Contacted by telephone in California July 7, 1994, Mark Phelps said the letter still represents his feelings.  He also cautioned people against taking the letter out of context, saying there is "gentleness" in the context of the letter and a hope that the community can better understand Fred Phelps based on what the letter contains.

"Many people have been asking me, over the past several weeks, about my father.  They want to know what I think about him and 'What is he really like?' People's interest in what I think baffles me, but after careful consideration, I decided to respond.
        What is he like? Well, it's been 19 years since I left home, but his behavior still appears to be the same.  He considers his environment to be against him without admitting, acknowledging or taking responsibility for how he contributes to that.  He likes to show himself as being moral, pro-family, pro-Bible, but his actions just don't add up to that.  I believe in God and the Bible, and my father's behavior doesn't fit the description of behavior that would show in the life of one who loves God; behavior characteristics such as Love, Joy, Peace, Longsuffering, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, Self-control.  Instead, my father's behavior characterizes, I believe, Hate, Outbursts of Wrath, Contention, Jealousy, Vengefulness, Misery, Harshness, and Selfish ambition.  He misstates the truth about his own behavior, about others, about the Bible, with apparent ease and regularity.  He behaves with a viciousness the likes of which I have never seen.  He accepts no genuine accountability in his life and is subject to no one.  His lifestyle betrays the sacred trust of what a pastor, husband, father and grandfather should be.  I suppose if a comparison were made between the life of Jesus Christ and my father, there would not be much to compare. [ Maybe Pastor Phelps represents the worst of the bible, as set forth in www.WhatKindOfGod.org! ]
        I also realize that my father is a very unstable person who is determined to hurt people.  And because he is so bound to be hateful and hurtful, and because he's so untrustworthy, I believe it's a good idea to respond to him with caution much like the caution used when dealing with a rattlesnake or a mad dog.  You see, the causes that he crusades for, including the Bible, are not the issue here.  He simply wants to hate and to have a forum for his hate.  If the causes he focuses on were the issue, that is, if they really meant something to him in his heart and he meant for the things he does to be for the good, his behavior would not be what it is.  He would not betray his message with his behavior.  But, when he needs to, to vent his hate, he readily goes outside the bounds of any previously stated 'value' or 'cause' he may have supported.  He experiences no moral dilemma when it comes to doing what he wants to do.  If it weren't the homosexuals, it would be something else.
        Yet checks and balances on his behavior are appropriate, on the part of the community, in order to at least confine his destructive behaviors and to limit his influence.  I believe that Topekans are making a good effort to try and stop him and should continue to do so.  He can seem very intimidating.  He can use foul language and come across with a booming voice to the community, but the truth is, like the Wizard of Oz, when Toto pulls the curtain back, instead of this big powerful individual, it's only a small, pathetic old man.
        I feel sorry for my father as I would for anyone who displays this kind of hate and evil viciousness.  These can only be the manifestations of tortured, injured and agonizing souls."
        – Mark W. Phelps

    When these children were made to pose for this picture, they weren't even old enough to know whether they were homo- or hetero- sexual!  But ignorance has never prevented unscrupulous preachers from using others who are even less educated than themselves to promote their causes.

A "Letter to the author"
(a good friend of mine) :

The following letter was sent to the author of the non-fiction book that was written about a personal friend of the second of the three popes who headed the Roman Catholic Church during the year 1978, the one who served but 33 days. He argues that at least one of the two Liberal popes who died that year was murdered to make room for the ultra-Conservative pope who replaced them, John Paul II.

Anyone who can read the following without shedding a tear deserves some kind of award.
"Dear Mr. Gregoire,
My name is Tommy. I read Murder in the Vatican.

I was born with one eye and had a wrinkled face so nobody wanted me. I think I scared them. Then one day when I was five years old my father showed up and took me home. I remember the kids used to laugh at me in the playground. Then my fathers sold everything they had including the house and I spent a long time in the hospital and the doctors and nurses made me look good. We have still many bills to pay. But now I am quite a ladies man at school. I hit my first home run last summer and this year I am going to hit forty more.

My parents love me. That is, they used to love me. Now only one of them loves me. Because the other one is dead. He gave his life trying to win freedom for Iraq. He died on my fourteenth birthday. I noticed in your book that General Patton said some words over the grave of another soldier who like my father was gay and gave his life to save some Italian school children.

As you know I wont be getting any benefits from the army or from social security to pay for my education or my medical bills because my parents did not have the freedom to marry and I was adopted by the father that is still with me. I didn't even get his purple heart or bronze star. The army gave them to his parents who hated him and sold them in a tag sale. I would have liked to have them.

My father tells me not to feel bitter because according to the last census there are more than a million children in gay families and they are in the same boat. But, of course, I am not listed with them because of the don't ask don't tell policy. My father says that there are also over fifteen million other children in single parent families, many like me who are of gay parents who are not counted in the census because they are fearful of losing their jobs too. So we are talking about a lot of children here, million s of them, not just me.

Both my father and I are sure that your book will be a best seller, I want to ask you a favor. I want to ask you when you are on Larry King Live, could you please read my letter. I think it might help people to understand our problem.

I was planning on being a baseball player. But your book has made me change my mind. Instead I am going to study hard and I am going to become president. Well, maybe not president, but I am going to help other people. Like me."

What kinds of sins bothered Christ-the-teacher-icon the most?

For those interested in what Jesus taught, as opposed to what has been handed down from one person, to another, to another, to another, and on, and on, and on, for two thousand years, why not go back to the source himself?   In my quest to determine what Jesus himself considered of greatest eternal consequence, the following is what this Christian preacher learned by reading and re-reading all four Gospels,Open Bible with the sole purpose of taking note of what kind of behavior, on the part of which people bothered Jesus the most.  To my surprise, I found that Jesus hardly ever worried about the Devil, or about personal sexual sin.  Jesus preached mostly to and/or about religious leaders about public sins, i.e. sins that affect others, sometimes many others.
        Is it to distract attention from themselves that so many preachers rant and rave about abortion, birth control, masturbation and homosexuality, which Jesus never mentioned, instead of attending to their own sins,   about which Jesus preached constantly ?
        Beginning with the people and topics about which Jesus preached least, (the Devil), the catalogue below progresses eventually  to a whole host of sins that Jesus condemned in the "men of God" of his day. All 7 groups are listed simply to illustrate the significance of the size and scope of the 7th group, Religious Leaders.

The list which follows is only a summary of the catalogue which I have devoted a whole web page to, at clergysins.html. That web page not only includes all of the specific bible passages refered to below, but provides live links to those passages, enabling the reader to read any of the passages they wish and even choose the version of the bible they may prefer. But here is the summary of that page:

Group I : Jesus reprimanded

  1. 3 times for desecrating the Lord's House

Group II : Jesus reprimanded

  1. 6 times for trying to mislead the faithful

Group III : Jesus reprimanded

  1. 3 times for tempting Jesus (in the desert)
  2. 3 times for competing with God (in parable of the seed)

Group IV :  Jesus reprimanded

  1. 7 times for not recognizing Christ as God's true prophet
  2. 4 times for shunning the Master's representatives

Group V :  Jesus reprimanded

  1. 3 times for being of little faith
  2. 2 times for relaxing any of God's commandments and/or teaching others to do so
  3. 4 times for going to sleep when it was time to be supporting Jesus (at Gethsemane)
  4. 1 time for betraying Jesus to his enemies (Judas)
  5. 2 times for being an obstacle to Christ's mission (Peter)

Group VI : Jesus reprimanded

  1. 1 time for "swearing" to confirm one's word
  2. 3 times for doing good to impress others, or only for the sake of a reward
  3. 2 times for failing to live up to Jesus' teaching after having accepted and professed it
  4. 2 times for putting friends or relatives before God
  5. 2 times for denying Christ before men
  6. 5 times for failing to be the salt of the earth or  the light of the world 
  7. 1 time for abusing others, even if only in words
  8. 2 times for judging and criticizing what God alone can do
  9. 1 time for lustful intentions and/or deeds
  10. 4 times for unacceptable grounds for divorce
  11. 1 time for being smug and comfortable 
  12. 3 times for being unprepared for the coming of the Master
  13. 2 times for having less faith than non-believers
  14. 1 time for not recognizing Christ in the needy

Group VII : Jesus reprimanded

  1. 4 times for insincere prayers and / or superficial virtue
  2. 4 times for requesting miraculous signs and then not accepting them
  3. 3 times for doing good deeds just to impress others
  4. 4 times for seeking titles and places of honor
  5. 1 time for ignoring weightier aspects of God's law
  6. 1 time for being liars 
  7. 6 times for being blind leaders and/or evil influences on those who looked to them for leadership
  8. 3 times for being hypocrites, whitened sepulchers, and/or a brood of vipers
  9. 2 times for placing burdens, which they are not willing to carry themselves, upon others
  10. 2 times for preventing others from pursuing holiness :
  11. 2 times for devouring the possessions of unsuspecting widows
  12. 3 times for sinning against the Holy Spirit :
  13. 3 times for promoting religious traditions counter to God's purposes
  14. 1 time for being false to the heritage of Abraham, whom they professed to honor 
  15. 3 times for questioning Jesus' authority to preach without the approval of their High Priest
  16. 4 times for not recognizing John the Baptist and/or Jesus as authentic prophets
  17. 8 times for condemning the innocent (including Jesus)
  18. 22 times for slandering Jesus or his disciples, by calling their innocent words or actions as "sinful", "blasphemous", "illegal", "diabolical" or "contrary to sacred traditions"
  19. Jesus_teaching_temple

    What did
    Jesus teach
      about  homosexuality ?

    absolutely nothing !

    Now whenever we liberal Christians point that out, conservative Christians are either stunned by that fact, or they quote the strong words of condemnation of homosexuality that Paul of Tarsus wrote, as though they can't tell the difference between Jesus of Nazareth and his Gospels on the one hand, and Paul of Tarsus and his Epistles on the other.

    Why didn't Jesus ever
    condemn homosexuality?

    In 2009 a scholarly friend of mine made me aware of the unique way in which some fundamentalist preachers interpret the words of Jesus quoted in Luke 17:34-35.  For centuries whether Protestants read their King James bible or Catholics read their Duoay Rheims bible, they read virtually the same translation, i.e. "I say to you: in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together: the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."
            This is the one and only passage that anti-gay preachers have been able to cite as proof that Jesus of Nazareth condemned homosexuality. Rev. Jerry Falwell reportedly used it to condemn Ellen Degeneres on the Phil Donahue TV show. However, here are the reasons that this is a misuse of that bible passage:

    If you would like to help expose "the Religious Right", which couldn't be more wrong, intellectually, morally and religiously, and more UN-Christian, then help promote our www.WhatWouldJesusThink.info website, where we show why Jesus would have a whole mountain of reasons to be furious with what the leaders of this movement have been doing and saying for years, all in his name!

    A same-sex marriage
    in Jesus' own family ?

            According to Matthew's Gospel  1:16 Mary's husband Joseph was the son of Jacob, who traced his ancestry to King David through his son Solomon.  But contrary to Matthew's account, Luke's Gospel  3:23-24, claims that Joseph was the son of Heli, who traced his totally different ancestry to King David through his son Nathan.  So "the Word of God" states very clearly that Joseph had two fathers, Jacob and Heli.  Was this a "gay marriage"?  Or is this just one of the many contradictions to be found in the Bible?

    "Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality" :
    ( Explode the Myths, Heal the Church )
    , by Jack Rogers.

    A life-long evangelical and a respected Presbyterian theologian, Rogers argues that fidelity to the Bible demands equal rights in the church and society for people who are LGBT. Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality describes Rogers' own change of mind and heart on the issue; charts the church's well-documented history of using biblical passages to oppress marginalized groups; argues for a Christ-centered reading of Scripture; and debunks oft-repeated stereotypes about gays and lesbians.
            "The best methods of interpretation, from the Reformation on down through today, call upon us to interpret the Scripture through the lens of Jesus Christ's life and ministry. Using this method we see clearly that Jesus and the Bible, properly understood, do not condemn people who are homosexual," Rogers writes in a stirring conclusion that is sure to provoke debate.



    What is so special about
    biblical injunctions
    against homosexuality?

    The bible recommends and/or condemns all kinds of behaviors.  Why the obsession in our day and age with what the bible may say about this one behavior?  Could it be that Conservative preachers who don't want to upset the majority of their followers by preaching about the sins those congregants may be committing find it convenient to "scape goat" this unpopular minority, which they perceive to be outsiders? 
           Don't all of these preachers profess to believe in the Ten Great Commandments?  Yet, what are they doing about the Sabbath Commandment?  Are they insisting that those who don't observe it properly be killed, as they are clearly told to do by "God's Word"?  Are they requiring that none of their flock work or patronize any kind of business on that day?  How many businessmen would support such churches, if they were being told to shut down their businesses, and not make any money on that day each week, including entertainment and transportation businesses?  See much more on this topic at sabbathobservance.html, including a letter of mine which was published in one of Connecticut's leading newspapers, The New Haven Register.

    The Biblical sin of Sodom
    wasn't about homosexuality

    No story in the Bible has been used more to persecute homosexuals than the story of Sodom (and Gomorrah). By the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Churches most respected theologian, Thomas Aquinas, had come to see all disasters of any kind as God's wrath over homosexual sin. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, collapsing buildings, runaway horses, women falling into ditches – all these and more were understood to be expressions of God's displeasure at "the wickedness of Sodom."  But people who view the biblical narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah as a story about "Sodomy" (or homosexuality) haven't read the rest of the bible.  If all one reads in the Bible is the 19th chapter of its very first book, i.e. Genesis, that would be an honest mistake.  But read through the 48 references to the word "Sodom" in the rest of the bible and you learn that the writers of the bible hardly ever associated the fate of Sodom with what Conservative Christians now call "Sodomy".
            Although today's Christians have been programed to view this story as an account of homosexuality gone wild, that's not what the bible authors themselves saw in that story:

    Biblical problems with
    gay marriage :

    If you believe that "the United States is a "Christian nation" and support the idea of a so-called "Defense of (biblical) Marriage Act" because of what the bible teaches, then you should prove your sincerity by promoting the rest of what the Bible teaches about marriage. To begin with, (in keeping with Gen. 29:17-28; II Sam. 3:2-5) that Act should be modified to read "Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women".  Then U. S. law should be revised to incorporate the following :

    1. (in keeping with II Sam. 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron. 11:21) marriage must not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. 
    2. (in keeping with Deut. 22:13-21) in order to be considered valid, a marriage the bride must be a virgin.  If she is not a virgin, she must be executed.
    3. (in keeping with Gen. 24:3; Num. 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 10:30) marriage of a believer and a non-believer must be forbidden. 
    4. (in keeping with Deut. 22:19; Mark 10:9) since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. 
    5. (in keeping with Gen. 38:6-10; Deut. 25:5-10) when a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow.  If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he must pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.

    Whose job is it to
    define "marriage" and "divorce" ?


    I am constantly amazed by the inability of most religious people who object to gay marriage to grasp the concept of a word like "marriage" having more than ONE "definition". Have they never looked up a word in the dictionary and found that it could have several different meanings, depending on the intention of the user? My Heritage Dictionary, for example, offers 13 different definitions for the noun "bar".
            As used in America today, is it too much to ask that people understand that the word "marriage" doesn't have to mean "the sacrament of Holy Matrimony performed for a man and a woman who meet the standards of eligibility by a priest who has been ordained by a bishop who can trace his roots to Jesus through one of the original bishops"? (That's what it takes to be truly "married" in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. Other churches have their own "definitions" of marriage).
            Ever since the stranglehold of the Church over the State has been broken, however, the "State" has had a different, more liberal "definition" for marriage. As a Liberal Christian clergyman (of French extraction), I say, "Vive la difference!" Let the churches all have and enforce their own definitions of "marriage" on all of those who willingly embrace each particular faith. But let the churches mind their own business and let the state define the "marriage" that it deals with in its civil laws as it sees fit, according to its own Constitutions and the laws passed by the representatives of the people, as dictated by science and reason, not by Leviticus, or even Paul of Tarsus.
            If the state were demanding that the churches change the way they define their "sacrament" of marriage, then church people would have every reason to scream bloody murder.
            But, in the current situation, it's the very opposite that is happening. What the nations (or individual states) have been doing in recent years , in response to the requests of its citizens, has been refining their own view of civil marriage. And when some church people try to interfere with that process, as though that were the church's business, then it's the civil government, and all those whom that government represents who have every reason to scream bloody murder and to tell the church to mind its own business!
            Years ago we went through the same kind of debate about divorce. At least in countries where the state wasn't controlled by the church, the state recognized that not all marriages were meant to last forever and began to allow the breaking of civil not sacramental marriages. It may put churches in a difficult position, to demand that people who have gotten a civil divorce be required to stay in a sacramental marriage, but they have every right to make that demand, if they choose to.
            P.S.:  Gay people aren't asking for any of the privileges afforded by religious marriage, whatever they may be. All they are asking for are the privileges and rights and obligations afforded by the civil government through what that government calls "marriage", like the right to visit one's spouse in the hospital, make decisions for one's spouse when need be, raise children with them if so desired, share pensions rights and health insurance, and finally inherit property that was accumulated together. None of this has anything to do with "the Sacrament of Holy matrimony", and allowing gays to have such rights won't endanger what churches call "marriage" one bit.


    Here's a letter to everyone who, like Dr. Laura Schlessinger, choose a select few verses of the Book of Leviticus, which they consider "God's Word" when they want to lecture homosexuals, but which they completely ignore when it comes to a great many other prohibitions of that very same book, namely Leviticus, Ch. 18, which claims God Almighty for the source of all which follows, "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:' Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You must not follow their statutes. My ordinances you must observe and my statutes you must keep, following them: I am the Lord your God.  You must keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord.' :
    Dear Dr. Laura,
            "Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.  I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.  When people try to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.  End of debate.
            It's so great to have somebody here who knows the Bible so well.,   Reading that part of the Bible, I've made a list of questions you can probably answer for me:

            I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
            And thanks for reminding us of God's eternal and unchanging word of truth.
            Your devoted disciple and adoring fan."

    On Oct. 18, 2000, one of the episodes of the outstanding TV series West Wing, featured the main character, President Bartlett, doing a great job of delivering many of these same lines to a "Dr. Jacobs". A videoclip of that scene was made available online for a time at a "stopLaura.com" web site, which may now be defunct.
            Since "the Word of God" tells us that "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, . . . for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God" { Deuteronomy 22:5 }, why is it that it's so difficult to find any picture of Dr. Laura wearing anything other than a pant suit?

    Before becoming a United Methodist preacher, I was a Roman Catholic priest. So I am comfortable addressing both Protestants and Catholics. I've addressed the first part of this page to all Christians, but at this point I would like to recommend that Roman Catholics, and those interested in the part they play in the controversies over homosexuality, go to my CatholicArrogance.Org/ChurchvsGays page.
            The balance of this page is addressed to the non-Catholic Christian community.

    Christian Conservatives pretend that their negative view of homosexuality is the only Christian view.  But it isn't.  On Sept., 11, 2006, many church leaders gathered in Dallas, Texas and issued the following official statement:

    statement by
    bishops and elders council :