Monday, December 30, 2013

The Bible and Homosexuality, Part 2: The Miseducation of Marc Hill

The title of this post is a play on former Fugees member Lauryn Hill's debut solo album, The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill and not meant as a personal slight towards the subject of this post, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill. I have the utmost respect for his charitable work, academic achievements and legal advocacy. However, during a previous post I pointed out where he was in error for making several statements including the following: (I've included the full quote without ellipsis for contextual purposes, the full video is provided here as well)


Dr. Hill: If you're saying that [Jesus] is confirming the Old Testament, well the Old Testament is far from clear around gay marriage or around gay acts.
Dr. Brown: Are you sure about that?
Dr. Hill: If you let me finish I'll tell you how I'm sure about it. The book of Leviticus according to most biblical scholars is not about being gay. If you're talking about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah for example it's really about being inhospitable to neighbors, it's about prostitution, it's about many other things. (emphasis added)
So I took to Twitter and posted my opinion of his appearance on the Piers Morgan Show. A few days later I followed up with the Tweet that became the subject of a back and forth between me and Dr. Hill.

My hypothesis is that Dr. Hill is grossly incorrect regarding his Old Testament interpretation. To wit, that "the Old Testament is 'far from clear' on homosexuality." Given the limitations of a tweet (140 characters) I did not provide a link to my previous blog post nor did I provide Dr. Hill the additional context of him saying "most biblical scholars" so to be fair we will examine only the context provided within the tweet. But I will address the other parts of the full quote because he had access to both the video of his statements via the parent tweet and I'm sure he remembers what he said.

Dr. Hill is correct in stating that the book of Leviticus is not about being gay. This is a straw man argument though as no one said Leviticus was about being gay.
Leviticus means "things pertaining to Levi." The book ... is a manual for priests, detailing the religious rules and procedures the priests had to observe and enforce for the covenant nation of Israel. ... The laws in the book were given to help the Israelites worship and live as God's holy people. - KJV Reference Bible (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994)
Rather, specific laws within Leviticus address homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). Dr. Hill also seems to imply that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is in Leviticus. It is not. The story is in Genesis 18:16-33 and Genesis 19. He should be given the benefit of the doubt that he knows this so the inference is not germane to this critique. I only note it to clarify the transcript listed above.

Dr. Hill responded to my challenge by referencing three separate "biblical scholars." I'll note later why I put the term biblical scholars in quotations.



The first reference is to Sexuality and the Black Church: A Womanist Perspective by Kelly Brown Douglas. There is one glaring problem with this cite. Kelly Brown Douglas is not a biblical scholar! In fact, she says so herself.
Before addressing this issue of biblical interpretation in our multicultural and ever-changing world, the first thing that I must say is perhaps that which many of you already know: I am a theologian and not a biblical scholar. While scripture is typically a significant source for much of our Christian theologies, and while our biblical interpretations inevitably have theological implications, the language, the tools and the overall nature of the disciplines are quite different. While I have a profound respect for the delicate and intricate hermeneutical skills required in the field of biblical scholarship, it is important for me to approach this timely issue as a theologian and not a biblical scholar. That said, however, there are some methodological concerns that I believe are germane to both theological and biblical interpretation and certainly significant to our discussion this afternoon. (emphasis added) - Douglas, K. (2001). Marginalized People, Liberating Perspectives: A Womanist Approach to Biblical Interpretation. Anglican Theological Review, 83(1), 41.
This is a non-trivial mistake by Dr. Hill. He mistakenly misrepresents his sources as biblical scholars when they clearly are not. Not only is Dr. Douglas not a biblical scholar, but neither is Cornel West (Philosophy, African American Studies). Dale B. Martin (Religious Study) is a biblical scholar. In fact, Dr. Martin "specializes in New Testament and Christian Origins." At first, I wanted to dismiss this as a semantic argument and move past it. However, Dr. Douglas clearly states that "the disciplines are quite different." Far be it from me to ignore the "highly regarded" expert that he cites or dismiss her "profound respect for the delicate and intricate hermeneutical skills required in the field of biblical scholarship" just because Dr. Hill seemingly does. Besides, it is possible that I'm missing something that isn't publicly available concerning Douglas and West. I think it crucial to point out this conspicuous error in his rebuttal to my request. I can only surmise that Dr. Hill was completely unaware of the difference as this is outside his field of expertise. As Thomas Sowell says in "Intellectuals and Society"
The fatal misstep of such intellectuals is assuming that superior ability within a particular realm can be generalized as superior wisdom or morality over all. - Sowell, Thomas: Intellectuals and Society (New York: Basic Books, 2009) Ch. 2
I also happen to be out of my realm of expertise (Business Systems Consulting) so rather than ending the analysis at this point I will continue as there are other significate deficiencies in the cited works.

Dr. Douglas does indeed question the Bible's admonition of homosexuality. However, she also uses a different term - homoeroticism - in her work Sexuality and the Black Church: A Womanist Perspective.
The irony is, however, that the Bible does not present as clear a position on homosexuality as is often self-righteously asserted. The meaning of the biblical stories customarily referred to as proof against homosexual practices has generally been misconstrued or distorted. Biblical scholars have painstakingly shown that the Leviticus Holiness Codes (Lev. 18:22; 20:13,) the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:1-9), and Paul's Epistle to the Romans (1:26-27) do not present a compelling case against homoeroticism. - Douglas, K.:Sexuality and the Black Church: A Womanist Perspective (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1999) p.90
Homosexuality and homoeroticism are not synonymous. I'm loathed to cite Wikipedia, but for expediency sake I'll note the difference.
Homoeroticism refers to the sexual attraction between members of the same sex, either male–male or female–female. The concept differs from the concept of homosexuality: it refers specifically to the desire itself, which can be temporary, whereas "homosexuality" implies a more permanent state of identity or sexual orientation. - Wikipedia article on Homoeroticism
It's a crucial distinction because it connotatively distinguishes between homosexual acts and deeds and is Dr Hill's best case for proving my theory incorrect. In short, there is nowhere in the Bible - Old or New Testament - where it says that merely thinking about homosexual sex is prohibited.

However, that can be said for every law of mankind and is thus a meaningless distinction! Thought-crime is a concept of science fiction (e.g., the movie Equilibrium), not reality. Furthermore, the concept is encapsulated in the common religious phrase "hate the sin, not the sinner." Even Dr. Douglas cites "homosexual practices" in her rebuke of the Bible, so we shall remain in that realm and not in the realm of fantasy. Some may say that hate crimes fit within this realm but a crime must be committed before the hate crime intent can be applied.

Dr. Douglas also argues that the New Testament is silent on homosexuality.
As John Boswell accurately points out: 'No effort is made to elaborate a comprehensive sexual ethic: Jesus and his followers simply responded to situations and questions requiring immediate attention.' Therefore, as is the case with the Old Testament, the New Testament provides no indisputable position on homosexuality. op. cit. p.90
I cite this because her mention of John Boswell is crucial as you will see later.

Dr. Douglas end notes each of the above statements, citing the following as her proof of what biblical scholars have to say on this issue. The first three cites concern her Old Testament statement and the last one justifies her New Testament statement. I've found evidence to suggest that some of theses references are biblical scholars but as stated above I have already stipulated the taxonomy ad arguendo.
  1. Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983)
  2. John McNeil, The Church and the Homosexual (Kansas City: Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, 1976)
  3. L.D. Scanzoni & V.R. Mollencott, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? A positive Christian Response, rev. ed (San Fran: Harper and Row, 1994)
  4. John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 117
Initially I had no idea why she would list a book about the New Testament in a discussion about the Old Testament. After further research I realized that this is a common theme in the theological practice to discount the Bible's admonition of homosexuality because Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are crystal clear. Why anyone would use text written over a thousand years after the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) to refute its meaning is sophistry in my humble opinion. But I decided to give the first cite a fair reading and I'm very glad that I did.

The New Testament and Homosexuality by biblical scholar Robin Scroggs a professor of Biblical Theology at the Union Theological Seminary in New York breaks down the arguments concerning the Bible's position on homosexuality into six different categories, four opposing homosexuality and two not opposing homosexuality. I shall include all six to avoid a counter argument of taking Prof. Scroggs out of context, but only the last two are relevant to my hypothesis.
  1. The Bible does not oppose homosexuality because it does not speak of true or innate homosexuality but rather of homosexual acts by people who are not homosexuals.
  2. The Bible opposes homosexuality, but it is just one sin among many. There is no justification for singling it out as more serious than other sins castigated in the Bible, but because of which ordination is not denied.
  3. The Bible opposes homosexuality but he specific injunctions must be placed in the larger biblical context of the theology of creation, sin, judgement, and grace.
  4. The Bible opposes homosexuality but is so time and culture-bound that its injunctions may and should be discarded if other considerations suggest better alternatives.
  5. The Bible does not oppose homosexuality because it does not speak of true or innate homosexuality but rather of homosexual acts by people who are not homosexual.
  6. The Bible does not oppose homosexuality because the texts do not deal with homosexuality in general.
What jumps out from page 16 of the book is Prof. Scroggs quote of Dr. John Boswell, the same Dr. Boswell that Dr. Douglas cites above.
"In sum, there is only one place in the writings which eventually become the Christian Bible where homosexual relationships per se are clearly prohibited - Leviticus - and the context in which the prohibition occurred rendered it inapplicable to the Christian community, at least as moral law." (emphasis added) - Scroggs, Robin: The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983) p. 16
Did he just say what I thought he said? Based on my research Dr. Boswell clearly believes that the Bible does not oppose homosexuality. However, even he readily admits that homosexual relationships are clearly prohibited in Leviticus and there is no doubt that Leviticus is in the Old Testament! At this point, it seems clear that Dr. Hill is utterly incorrect in stating that the Old Testament is far from clear around gay marriage or around gay acts. Though it might be considered torment to continue my deconstruction of Dr. Hill's statement, I want to make sure that I give his cites due diligence and a fully objective review.

To continue with the analysis of Prof. Scroggs, I found the text very educational and am very happy to enhance my knowledge of the Bible. His analysis is thorough, presents both sides of the argument equally and provides clear and concise conclusions. I intend to thank him for his work. What's most relevant to this analysis is the statement I found on page 99.
Today's denominational debates about homosexuality revolve around the pronouncements in the New Testament. Granted, the laws in Leviticus are unequivocally opposed to male homosexual activity. Since the Old Testament is emphatic about many issues ignored or discarded by the Christian churches, however, it cannot be said that the Old Testament alone would control contemporary decisions, were it not for the fact that the New Testament repeats these negative judgments. (emphasis added) - ibid. 99
The highlighted statement ends this segment of the argument, unequivocally. How Dr. Douglas missed this I have no idea. To be completely fair, Prof. Scroggs suggests, and I agree, that biblical judgements against homosexuality are not relevant. Yet we agree for different reasons which aren't relevant to this discussion. Suffice it to say that, Prof. Scroggs concludes that pederasty was the issue of the biblical texts. Pederasty is by definition sexual activity involving a man and a boy and thus a homosexual act, so Dr. Hill will find no safe harbor in this conclusion.

We move next to former Father (he was expelled from the Jesuits in 1987 for ministry to gay people which I find abhorrent) and psychotherapist John J. McNeill. Please note that Mr. McNeill is also not a biblical scholar. He states this clearly on page 17 of his book by saying "I make no pretense to be a biblical scholar." Once again, how Dr. Douglas missed this I have no idea. Be that as it may his opinion is relevant as he also cites Dr. John Boswell's work within his book.

With regard to the treatment of the biblical material, a special word of gratitude should go to Dr. John Boswell of Yale University. It was while reading his brilliant scholarly reflections, subsequently published in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980), dealing with the loci in the epistles of Saint Paul supposedly concerned with homosexuality, that I first became aware that the traditional scriptural basis for the condemnation of homosexual acts as contrary to the revealed will of God was open to serious question. - McNeil, John: The Church and the Homosexual (Kansas City: Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, 1976) p. 15-16

As we have already addressed Dr. Boswell's position it would be redundant to provide additional detail here. However, at this point I'll mention another common theme of most of these critical texts. I like to call it The Magic of Liberal Context. Its precept is this: words on a page or spoken by an individual never have the explicit meaning that either the writer or the speak invokes. Rather, they must be analyzed "in context" and the liberal doing the analysis gets to define that context. Furthermore, the context is always favorable and supports their argument even if the explicit spoken or written words say the exact opposite. This is how Pastor Jeremiah Wright, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, Senator Robert Byrd and many others of the political left can say the most hateful of things but be supported and held high as a positive influence because what they say is always taken out of context. There is no doubt that context is important. However, where Prof. Scroggs says the context of the Old Testament's admonition of homosexual acts is actually rejection of pederasty, Father McNeill says the context is rejection of idolatry and Dr. Hill says the context is rejection of in-hospitality and prostitution. In fact, Father McNeill makes the following claim.

It would appear, then, that [the apostle] Paul treats of homosexual activities only within the context of idol worship. The Holiness Code (Lev. 18:22, 20:13) originally established the connection between idolatry and homosexual activity. The Code specifically warns the Israelites against accepting the idolatrous practices of the Cannanites. ibid. p. 57

Leviticus does no such thing and is in no way limited to the rejection of the Cannanites. The principle concept of Leviticus is the holiness of God and of humanity as referenced in Lev. 11:45

For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

If Father McNeill is correct, is it a stretch to suggest that the entire book of Leviticus is about idolatry such that Lev. 19:11 "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another" is really about idolatry? How are we to know which verses are about idolatry and which aren't? They will tell us of course and rest assured it will be the verses that they don't like which by pure coincidence are Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, the only two verses explicitly condemning homosexual acts. How convenient! Logically this makes no sense but these are the lengths to which they will go to prove their point.

Next we move to Letha Dawson Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. Sadly, neither is a biblical scholar. In fact, Ms. Scanzoni lists no formal degrees whatsoever and Ms. Mollenkott is an English professor emeritus at William Paterson University of New Jersey. The errors in their analysis are glaring likely due to their lack of scholarship. For instance, they cite the following:

To underscore the sin of inhospitality in Sodom, [John McNeill] reminds us of Jesus' words to his disciples in Luke 10:10-13: "Whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you...I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town." - L.D. Scanzoni & V.R. Mollencott: Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? A positive Christian Response, rev. ed (San Fran: Harper and Row, 1994) p. 60

Yet they miss the context of that chapter. Luke 10 is about Jesus sending out his disciples to tell the people that the kingdom of God is coming and they are to be judged. It even says that in Luke 10:8-9, the verses just before the cite (i.e., "And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things that are set before you: and heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." This mission is reiterated in Matthew 10:5-15 and Mark 6:6-12

Matthew 10:5-15
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha [sic] in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Mark 6:6-12
And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats. And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha [sic] in the day of judgment, than for that city. And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

As is blatantly obvious from the biblical text the sin is not inhospitality. It's not because they didn't invite their visitors in and offer them tea and crumpets. In fact, there is no place in the bible where inhospitality is a sin and it's frivolous to suggest it as such. Hospitality is much too subjective to suggest it as a requirement of morality. Would any rational person suggest that during a home invasion if you didn't offer the robbers a drink of water you were doomed to Hell? Rather it is the rejection of Jesus' teachings and warnings that the kingdom of God is at hand that is the sin that will doom them on judgement day.

Scanzoni and Mollenkott also mention this ridiculous sin of inhospitality in reference to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis.

It should be noted that some Bible scholars do not believe that the intent of the men of Sodom was sexual. They have pointed out that the Hebrew word translated "know" may here simply indicate the townspeople's desire to find out who these strangers were and examine their credentials....Whether the intent was sexual or not, however, the strangers were treated abominably and the sin of inhospitality was committed. ibid. p. 57

This analysis is utterly ridiculous in my opinion! If the intent wasn't sexual, then why did Lot offer up his two virgin daughters in their stead in Gen. 19:8?

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Can we assume that Lot wanted to have his daughter's credentials examined as well? I think not and nor would any casual reader of the text. While I would agree that it's extremely inhospitality to gang rape visiting angels, I'm quite sure it's the threaten gang rape, once carried out, that is the sin and not the lack of handshakes, pleasant greetings and offers of sugar with their tea.

Next, regarding Dr. Hill's cite of Cornel West's The Cornel West Reader, I have no earthly idea why this is included. Cornel West's book is autobiographical and not a critical analysis of Old Testament text. As he says in the preface "The primary aim of this reader is to lay bare the basic structure of my intellectual work and life." I am not about to embarrass or misrepresent Dr. West by doing a critical analysis of his personal life and why he feels the way he does. I happen to completely agree with his acceptance of the homosexual community. Furthermore, there is no detailed analysis of Genesis or Leviticus anywhere in his text. Further analysis would be imbecilic and a disservice to the intent of the book. I will rather apologize for his name being mentioned in the context of this analysis and move on to the next subject.

Dr. Hill's final cite is Heterosexism and the Interpretation of Romans 1:18-32 by Dr. Dale Martin who is indeed a biblical scholar! Unfortunately for Dr. Hill, Dr. Martin has absolutely nothing to say on the Old Testament other than "the first chapters of Genesis do not explicitly recount the beginnings of idolatry and polytheism." I knew that reading this was going to be a waste of my time. After all the title explicitly describes the subject. Thankfully it was only 23 pages long. Dr. Martin's theory is that most biblical scholars are "heterosexist" even if they don't know it and, therefore, they generate heterosexist interpretations that are incorrect. I will stipulate that point ad arguendo. Nevertheless, this cite has absolutely nothing to do with the Old Testament and therefore is a gross non sequitur. Why Dr. Hill would bother to cite this work to prove his point is beyond comprehension and would be a waste of my time to offer an opinion for or against the contents.

So, if you've been keeping count five non-biblical scholars (Hill, Douglas, McNiell, Scanzoni and Mollencott) have said the Old Testament isn't about homosexuality, two biblical scholars (Scroggs and Boswell) say it is about homosexuality, one non-biblical scholar (West) offers a philosophical reason for treating homosexuals as moral equals and one biblical scholar (Martin) offers no opinion in the cite provided by Dr. Hill. At this point I must recount Dr. Hill's gloat and hubris.

Actually, no Dr. Hill I don't want you to keep going. I'm not an expert in the field of biblical scholarship but I feel that I have debunked your references and further references would likely only diminish your credibility on this subject. The flaw may be that you were supplying information "off the stop of your head" because quite often that method is drastically inadequate unless you thorough know the subject matter. I still have the utmost respect for your charitable work, academic achievements and legal advocacy. However, on this matter I believe your extemporaneous responses have been weighed, they have been measured and they have been found wanting. As I did before, I will again apologize for calling you a liar as that was grossly inappropriate. However, in the future might I again suggest that you refrain from biblical scholarship and stick to your intellectual specialty of African American Studies.

Once again, my hypothesis is that Dr. Hill is grossly incorrect regarding his Old Testament interpretation. To wit, that "the Old Testament is 'far from clear' on homosexuality." Comments are welcome as to the validity of this hypothesis given the above analysis as I welcome criticism. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have not read all of the cited works in their entirety for expedience purposes. I wanted to respond while the issue was still fresh. I accept that I might be completely wrong but I think this analysis will hold and I will continue reading and provide corrections where appropriate.

I do not expect that Dr. Hill will change his position. In fact, social psychologists would suggest that cognitive dissonance would cause my critique to strengthen his beliefs rather than change them. Cognitive dissonance is a very strong psychological force and can partially explain why Heaven's Gate and other doomsday cults commit suicide rather than face the fact that their belief systems is incorrect.

I'm not suggesting that Dr. Hill will commit suicide, that's ludicrous. Rather, it's more likely that he won't read this analysis. However, my erudition has been enhanced by this exercise and I enjoyed the experience.

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

The Bible and Homosexuality

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22 KJV
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
I'm an atheist but I used to be a devoutly religious person. So much so that I have read the Bible from cover to cover, used to have many things about it memorized and have studied the texts of many other religions as well.

So, it seems pretty straightforward to me, what about you? The Bible, the Torah and the Koran (the textbooks of the three major religions) all consider homosexuality an abomination. Anyone seeking to refute that fact is either suffering from cognitive dissonance or being intellectually dishonest. But since I don't believe in the Gods described in those texts - or any other texts for that matter - I think differently.

However, to this day people are still trying to drastically misinterpret them. I was watching a clip from The Piers Morgan Show and one of the guest actually said the following:
"There are several problems with that interpretation. One, the New Testament absolutely does offer the words in the voice of Jesus and he very explicitly does not talk about being gay and even the scripture you cited about marriage is very different then talking about being gay. ... If you're saying that [Jesus] is confirming the Old Testament, well the Old Testament is far from clear around gay marriage around gay acts. ... The book of Leviticus according to most biblical scholars is not about being gay. If you're talking about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah it's really about being inhospitable to neighbors." (emphasis added) - Marc Lamont Hill
Wrong. Mr. Hill's rambling statement was utterly without merit and his appeal to authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate) is specious at best. The word sodomy (sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation) is directly derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and to say otherwise, to suggest that the story is about a civilization of people being wiped off the face of Earth by the hand of God because they weren't cordial enough to their visitors is fantasy and a trivialization of the vile nature of Sodom and Gomorrah.

It's a good thing that Dr. Michael Brown was on the show where "Hebrew scholarship is [his] background" and he has a Ph.D in Semitic languages.

If you get a chance, please read Genesis 19. Especially the part where the men of the town, when finding out that two new men are in town to visit Lot (they were actually angels), tell Lot "bring them out unto us, that we may know them." Biblical scholars definitely agree that "knowing" them means having sex with them. Lot's response is particularly disgusting as well.

The point is either you accept that the Bible, the Torah, the Koran et. al. are the word of God and his prophets or you don't. But rest assured, each is explicit in their disdain for homosexuality and to say otherwise is just a lie. Furthermore, it's always nice to see Piers Morgan making an idiot of himself. That's just the icing on the cake and a wonderful Christmas present.

Friday, December 20, 2013

It Looks Bad! Ban It!

"Because many of the e-cigarettes are designed to look like cigarettes and be used just like them, they can lead to confusion or confrontation." - City Council Speaker Christine Quinn
That's right people. We need to ban anything that looks like cigarettes, so watch out. Next, they will be banning those bubblebum cigarettes that I used to puff on when I was a kid. You remember, the ones "when you blow on them, powder comes out looking like smoke."

It seems that Mayor Bloomberg has never met a ban that he didn't like. So the nanny-state of liberal collectivism continues in one of the world's biggest cities. It's sad that NYC legislators are spending precious time banning things that have no proven negative impact on anyone.

Ironically, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute just released a study saying that there is "No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer." So, even the reason for banning actual cigarettes in public places has been proven to have zero scientific merit. But remember, we aren't dealing with science and logic. This is collectivism where perception is reality. So because secondhand smoke is a nuisance, it must be banned.

Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that there is no smoking in bar and clubs. I got tired of going home smelling as if I smoked a pack of Lucky Strikes! But I just assumed that was the risk of going out to party. Also, there were ways to avoid it. I believe in logic, freedom, science and individual responsibility. Collectivists don't. So, look out for the next ban coming your way, a ban on tweeting in public. Yes, I know it sounds silly and the linked article says there isn't a ban, but not from lack of trying!

Monday, December 9, 2013

Calling Obama "President" is Racist!

"The word was conceived of by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man. To render him inferior and unequal and to diminish his accomplishments." - Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC
Of course you know the word she's talking about right? Is it "nigger"? No, it's ObamaCare! That's right, ObamaCare is the newest code word for nigger. Now that Martin Bashir is gone from the MSNBC airwaves, Melissa Harris-Perry has taken on the mantle of pointing out that the only reason for disliking the Obama administration's policies is racism. It can't possibly be anything else in the mind of these collectivists, because Obama is perfect in every way and has done so much to help blacks including...something. What that something is I have no idea and neither do they.

As I mentioned in a previous post, even Tavis Smiley admits "...the data is going to indicate, sadly, that when the Obama administration is over black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator on that regard the president ought to be held responsible..." The Congressional Black Caucus admits "if Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House." But those that dare challenge the success of Obama and his signature program are racists if they are not either Democrats or liberal progressives.

Why? Because the racist card has worked for them for almost 50 years. It keeps blacks voting for the Democratic Party at a 90% rate and above. Furthermore, it keeps black organizations in line such that they rarely complain about the failure of the Democratic Party to effectively address problems in the black community. At least not openly that is.

The list of code words or phrases for nigger has gotten quite long during the Obama administration. I've included a partial list here; skinny, IRS, bully or thug, angry, Chicago, Constitution, food stamp and PGA Tour. The list is expected to grow at an exponential rate as his signature program crumbles and his income inequality agenda fails to get implemented, but at least it has a possible limit according to Assistant House Democratic Leader, Congressional Black Caucus member and former CBC Chairman Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-SC).
"The entire English language was created by slaveowners [sic] as a means of oppression. You can’t just say that one word is a racist code word or another. The whole language, every single word, letter and apostrophe in it is racist. It’s a fact. If you speak English, you’re a racist."
Ironically, Mr. Clyburn said that quote in ENGLISH! Someone should inform Mr. Clyburn that English wasn't created in 18th century America, but was a fusion of dialects collectively termed Old English and who's origins trace back to the mid-5th century. But the knowledge of this fact wouldn't fit his meme so I'm sure he'd either ignore it or find some way to be intellectually dishonest about it.

So, because English is a racist language there will be no end to the coded words that really mean nigger. I expect when all is said and done, calling Barack Obama "President" will be a dog-whistle for evoking a racist Pavlovian response from teabaggers. Sorry, did I say teabaggers? I meant white racists because as everyone knows, the Tea Party is racist.