As you might imagine, I receive a significant number of attacks from the Christianist sheeple set taking me to task for not blindly and slavishly conforming to their literal - and as is always the case, very selective - application of the Bible. As long as their ox isn't being gored, literalism is great. But when the issue of divorce, not bearing false witness, etc., arise, their literalism goes out the window. In short, I hear from many, many modern day Pharisees as I call them. Most - as a post yesterday indicates - do not have the guts to identify themselves and stand behind their intolerant and often down right hateful statements. *
Without fail, these folks seem incapable of grasping the concept of separation of church and state and are Hell bent to impose their religious beliefs on all citizens. Freedom of religion for them is very much a one way street. Likewise, they have no concept of minority rights - majority mob rule is what they are all about. Last night, I received a lengthy e-mail from one of these (in my opinion) loons which was full of the usual Bible thumping and majority rule rants. What was unusual is that this writer - one Robert Martin who by the way is most unhappy with the 23 San Jose area churches I wrote about that opposed Proposition 8 - used what I assume was real his name and used what appears to be a real e-mail address ( bobmartin30@gmail.com). I will not belabor readers with his long screed, but he is my reply to him:
*
Mr. Martin,
*
I have heard all of your arguments before - in essence they come down to (1) the support of majority mob rule and (2) a mindless following of the Bible as the inerrant word of God - which I am sorry to say it is not. On the latter point, you might consider reading John Shelby Spong's "Saving the Bible from Fundamentalism" as well as some other works by Biblical scholars. To me, it's pretty clear that only those who are ignorant or have a fearful need to put God in a box so as to avoid the need for serious thought cling to your approach to the Bible. On the former issue, the founding fathers specifically wanted to insure that a majority could not terrorize and run rough shod over a minority group, the courts being the main bulwark to protect minority groups. Under your theory, if I could round up a majority vote, we could amend the state and national constitutions to deprive Catholics of voting rights and other civil rights, Per your argument, that would be just fine and dandy. I suspect you'd be less of an advocate for mob majority rule were that to occur.
*
Also, I would think as a Catholic, you'd be more careful to not be so damn sure that your views are right. The Roman Catholic Church - I am a former Catholic by the way - has a very long history of being wrong on the issues when it comes to refusing to accept scientific and other advances in knowledge (e.g., formerly supporting slavery, believing the universe revolves around the earth - the list goes on and on). All of the legitimate medical and mental health experts agree that sexual orientation is not a choice and that same sex attraction and love is "normal" for some of us. God I'm sure knows this too - and will judge modern day Pharisees such as yourself very harshly for your persecution of gays.
*
Oh and as for the anger, the hostility, I see the lives of LGBT citizens damaged every day by the ignorance and intolerance of those like you. Suicide, years of self-hate and self-loathing and loss of jobs, etc., are the handiwork that comes from Christianists and Bible thumpers like yourself. What makes it worse is that it all derives from those with a fragile faith in God who seek to impose their very fallible judgments on others so that they can feel secure and self-satisfied. You bet it makes me angry. I will pray that God will open your eyes and heal your intolerant hate filled heart.
*
Michelinnorfolk
*
I'm sure that a number of you have thoughts you could share with Mr. Martin as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment