( for
) | Does GOD "Hate Fags" ? |
|---|
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.
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!
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
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
 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,
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:
What did
|
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.
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!
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.
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.
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:
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 :
|
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:
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:
On September 11, 2001, some leading Christian extremists portrayed the tragedy of 9/11 as God&'s judgment on America for the presence of gays and lesbians. The intervening years have witnessed an alarming escalation of religion-based, anti-gay attacks by both political leaders and religious groups.
As unified followers of Christ, reclaiming our faith, we commit to speak boldly with our own communities and the larger culture from out of our experience as those who have been both oppressed and oppressor. We will communicate God’s incessant call for justice, wholeness and peace and work to equip ourselves and others to take concrete action to achieve God’s loving shalom.
The Bishops and Elders Council further commits to continued work on behalf of all people oppressed or marginalized by poverty, immigration policies, HIV/AIDS, addictions, classism, sexism, ageism, or violence.”
The conference was co-chaired by the Rev. Dr. Nancy Wilson, Moderator, Metropolitan Community Churches, Bishop Yvette Flunder, The Fellowship, and Rebecca Voelkel, Program Director of the Institute for Welcoming Resources.
Besides Soulforce, the Fellowship, and MCC organizations present included GLBT and allied Christians from DignityUSA (Roman Catholic), More Light Presbyterians, That All May Freely Serve (Presbyterians), United Church of Christ Coalition for LGBT Concerns, Lutherans Concerned, Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists, Brethren Mennonite Council for LGBT Interests, National Baptist Conference of Welcoming and Affirming Churches, Reconciling Ministries Network (United Methodist Church), the Evangelical Network, the Intern-Denominational Conference of Liberation Congregations & Ministries, Reformed Catholic Church, Universal Anglican Church, National Black Justice Coalition, Room for All, The Fellowship, and HRC’s new Religion and Faith Program, and the National Religious Leaders Roundtable of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force."
Shortly after the terrible hurricane killed thousands of poor people in New Orleans, Louisiana, a Christian Conservative web site (repentamerica.com/pr_hurricanekatrina.html) posted an article proclaiming that
"Just days before 'Southern Decadence' (8/31/05) , an annual homosexual celebration attracting tens of thousands of people to the French Quarters section of New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina destroys the city.
'Southern Decadence' has a history of filling the French Quarters section of the city with drunken homosexuals engaging in sex acts in the public streets and bars. . ."
Such deplorable "theology" reminds me about the joke of the golfing clergyman. If you want to use this joke, you may want to embellish it some, but it boils down to this: A clergyman is golfing with some members of his congregation and when he misses strokes at the 6th, then the 14th, he lets loose with some profanity, apologizing each time. When he falls from grace once again on the last hole, a bolt of lighting comes out of the blue and strikes the laymen dead. At which, a distressed voice from the heavens complains "Damn it, missed again!"
What a dud God is, if he intended to punish degenerate gays, and scheduled Hurricane Katrina the week before the sinners were in town !
Though not as abrasive as Rev. Phelps, a number of other "Conservative" Christian leaders in America have been getting more and more intolerant of gays in recent years, not just in their own churches, but in the public square as well. They have been vociferous in their objections to gays being allowed to serve openly in the military, against gays being protected from discrimination in housing and employment, against gays being allowed to parent children in need of adoption, against gays being allowed to marry those with whom they plan to spend the rest of their lives, against gays being given any measure of legal protection through civil rights legislation, as well as being against gays having leadership roles in the church or in other organizations in which they serve. Lurking behind much of this "frenzy" is the idea that homosexuality and the Bible are incompatible.
"We reject [homosexuals], treat them as pariahs, and push them outside our church communities, and thereby we negate the consequences of their baptism and ours. We make them doubt that they are the children of God, and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for something that is becoming increasingly clear they can do little about. "
In a Massachusetts survey of high school homosexuals recently, 40% reported they had attempted suicide. Now this percentage obviously doesn't include those who succeeded. And if the figure is this high in one of the country's most progressive states, just imagine what it is like in the much more regressive states.
One need not be homosexual, however to wonder why so-called "Christians" are concentrating so much of their energy condemning this one sin (if indeed it is a sin). If Christian Conservatives paid more attention to the Christ they claim to believe in, then they would be concerned about many other things. Most notably, Jesus objected to a heterosexual sin called "divorce" far more strenuously than he objected to homosexuality (which he never even mentioned). So why aren't so-called Christian Conservatives hunting down and rounding up all of the perpetrators of divorce in America these days? Why, indeed, are they going out of their way to endorse the candidacy of as many divorced Republicans as they can find? Divorce practically seems to be a requirement these days for a leadership position in the Republican Party. According to Christ's teaching, Senator Strom Thurmond and Congressman Bob Barr, are now living in their third full-time adulterous relationship, since divorcing their first and only true wives years ago. Rush Limbaugh and Representatives Guy Millner and Newt Gingrich are living full-time in their second publicly known adulterous relationships. How and why were "Christian Conservatives" able to reject the most pious Christian President America ever had, Jimmy Carter, in order to embrace a known adulterer and divorced Hollywood actor, Ronald Reagan, who hardly ever bothered to go to a church, unless it was a political event? Isn't it amazing how "liberal" Christian Conservatives can be when it comes to Republican Senators and Presidential Candidates like Bob Dole, Liddy Dole and John McCain, who have abandoned their true wives and children and, according to the teaching of Jesus, have made them adulteresses.
together since "the great depression" After 65 years, these two women just keep on "enjoying each other's company." How many "straight couples" have been together through 12 different presidential administrations? Carey Leto, 90, and Venera Magazzu, 92, now living together in Tampa, Fla., will celebrate their 65 year old relationship this summer with a trip back to New York City, where their union began. { http://www.nyblade.com/2004/5-21/locallife/main/needs.cfm } |
If we heterosexuals who are in the majority feel that we must draw the line as to how the homosexual minority must live out their lives, is it really necessary that we limit them to these four lousy choices:
What would be so bad about inviting them to do what the rest of us in the heterosexual majority have found to be so satisfying, i.e. trying to find a good life-long partner, "tieing the knot", settling down, and maybe even having or adopting children to share their life with?
Although I would use more tempered language, I think Daniel Savage is a great advocate on behalf of GLBT youth who are hurt by Conservative Christian homophobic propaganda. And I think it is laughable for Conservative Christians who can't appreciate how offensive the actual teaching of the Bible is, to instead whine about Daniel's choice of words in exposing that horrible teaching.
If I were a great British former comedian and now internet sensation, like Pat Condell, this is the way I would summarize the contents of this web page in this 5:45 min video :
or this 5 minute video
The Christian Evangelical "Barna Group" which does polling and research on issues of interest to the religious community found in 2004 that, "Among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%. "And those
divorces generally did not occur before they became born-again Christians, but after."
Barna research carried out in 1999, 2001, and 2004 found the divorce rates among the various groups to be :
The media (which Conservatives laughingly call "liberal") and the Republican Party have conspired to paint the Democratic party as the less moral of the two major parties. But the fact is that only a third as many scandals are known about Democrats in high office as there are about Republicans. See http://WhatWouldJesusThink.info/blindleaders.html about hypocritical Conservative religious leaders, and http://JesusNoRepublican.Org/gopimmorality.html about hypocritical Republican politicians.
Now, divorce was far from Jesus' greatest concern. But, isn't it hypocritical for Conservatives to attack homosexuality in Jesus' name, while ignoring divorce. Jesus never said a bad word about homosexuality, but he did condemn divorce!
Several denominations in America today are questioning whether homosexuals can be authentic preachers of the Gospel. But what concerned Jesus most, what he spoke and preached about most, was the need to divorce oneself from selfishness and to love and to share one's good fortune with those less fortunate than oneself. Is there any denomination questioning whether materialists can be authentic preachers of the Gospel? How many clergy would there be to head the Christian congregations in America, if denominations removed those who do not believe and preach what Jesus preached about the necessity to give one's excess wealth (not just one's second shirt) to the poor? Why shouldn't that be the question denominations ask, instead of whether clergypersons are gay themselves, or would perform gay marriage ceremonies for those who are? Click here to review
If you are a Christian homosexual who expects the way homosexuals are being treated by most denominations today to change, then I urge you to join in promoting the essence of the Gospels: Christ's demands that we love and help those less fortunate than ourselves. "Christians" will only treat you fairly, when they treat everyone, the poor, the needy, the imprisoned, the immigrant, and all needy people with the justice and compassion that the bible demands ! And now, if you haven't already done so, be sure to check out the accompanying web page:
Fred Phelps isn't the only "Christian" preacher who is promoting the idea that "God hates fags". The Rev. Donnie Davies is another. http://www.eveningservice.com/Video features him singing his "God hates fags". song.
Here's an interesting graph that shows the role that religion usually plays in promoting homophobia:
In 2013, Russia suddenly emerged as one of the most homophobic countries in the world, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin who, like so many dictators of history, has learned to be on the right side of one's nation's most powerful church. Fundamentalist Catholic and Protestant missionaries from the U.S.A. who were fighting a losing battle back home contributed to that hysteria. But a much more important contributor was Russia's own home church, Russian Orthodoxy. It would surprise most Americans to know how "Christian" Russia has became since the fall of the Soviet Union. Google "Putin Orthodox" and select "images" and you will find many pictures like these :
While he was partnering with Syria's brutal dictator Assad, and preventing the world from intervening in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of helpless Syrians, Putin took time off to preach to the U.S.A. and its European allies, on the grounds that their advocacy on behalf of gay justice and equality :
In his State of the Nation speech last month, Putin asserted that, "Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values… Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan." Russia has adopted new laws that ban homosexual propaganda and criminalizes the insulting of religious sensibilities." [ from a conservative web site I won't identify so as not to drive any traffic to it ]
Were you born "normal", as either a boy or a girl with all the right sex organs in the right place and with the "normal" sex drives? Are you sure? Many people who think so are wrong, and may never know it. Most of us assume that every baby born is either a boy or a girl; but that is simply not the case.
"About one in 45,000 children are born without a clearly identifiable gender. (Someone emailed me to argue with some authority that it was closer to 1 in 2,000) Doctors, patients and parents are faced with huge dilemmas when they have to make the choice – boy or girl. Rae Fry asks at what stage in the child's life should the choice be made? And does the choice have to be made at all?. . .
Sex differences occur on a number of independent dimensions. Genetic sex, or the organization of the "sex chromosomes," is often thought to indicate the true sex, with males having one X and one Y, while females have two Xs. However, about one in 400 people are neither XX nor XY, but have less common combinations, such as XO (a single X), XXY, or even different combinations in different cells within the same individual, for instance some cells XX and some cells XY. During gestation (pregnancy), the sex chromosomes determine the differentiation of the gonads, usually into ovaries or testes, but sometimes into ovo-testes (combining ovarian and testicular cells), and occasionally the gonads are absent. For the first six weeks, all fetuses have essentially female genitals. Testosterone produced by fetal testes causes the clitoris to grow to form a penis, the inner labia to wrap around the penis to create the penile urethra, and the outer labia to fuse to create a scrotal sac. The process may not complete, resulting in genitals which may look nearly female, but with a large clitoris; nearly male, with a small penis and perhaps with the urethral meatus (urinary aperture) along the bottom rather than at the tip of the penis; or they may be truly "right in the middle" ambiguous genitals, with a structure that might be considered either a large clitoris or a small penis, surrounded with what might be a split, empty scrotum, or outer labia, and with a small vaginal pouch that opens into the urethra rather than into the perineum. Because different hormonal systems control the differentiation of the genitals and of the internal reproductive organs, some individuals are born with nearly male genitals outside, and a uterus, tubes, and ovaries inside. Some are born with female genitals outside and undescended testes inside. . .
At the core of the debate is surgery on babies and very young children. For decades, this has been conventional medical practice for children born with sexual organs that are in between male and female. It sounds barbaric, and patient groups and some surgeons are calling for the practice to be stopped. They say surgery should be delayed until the child is old enough to consent. But surgery or no surgery is not the only issue. Intersex conditions include a wide variety of internal and external, genetic and hormonal characteristics. Many aren't visible at birth. And every individual affected is unique.
How many people would continue to deny that people are born homosexual if they had any idea how ambiguous the whole issue of sexuality really is and how tenuous their own sexuality is? We would call in the white coats to cart off anybody who claimed that people choose to be hermaphodites. Yet we take people seriously when they claim that people choose to be homosexual !
website
