Seriously, Fred Phelps, WTF?

From On Top Magazine:

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that anti-gay pastor Fred Phelps does not have the First Amendment right to have his monument against Matthew Shepard – and more precisely against being gay – displayed on government property, reports the Casper Star-Tribune.... Phelp's monument stated: “Matthew Shepard Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning 'thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22.”

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh. This guy is like 10,000,000 Santorums. WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT?!?!?! Why, Fred Phelps, why do you do these things? Why do you present them as though they are the Christian thing to do? WHY?!

Jesus Christ told us not to judge. He said that. A few times, as I've pointed out on several of my previous posts. Why on Earth did you decide that Leviticus is more important to Christianity than the message of Christ? And why, out of all of Leviticus, do you pick homosexuality as the single worst thing ever? WHY?

I don't get it. I do not understand this man. I do not understand his position. I do not understand how he can read the Bible and think "God hates fags" is not only in there, but is the central message.

Anyway, good thing the Supreme Court has some sense. And I won't even bother asking Phelps WTF Jesus would do, because he clearly doesn't know.

Scott Renfroe: Yet Another Republican Using the Bible as an Excuse to be a Douche

(via Queerty)

Scott Renfroe, Scott Renfroe. Quite the publicity stunt you've pulled here, buddy. Two days ago you were just a Colorado State Senator, probably not even widely known in your own state. Now, however, all them pesky gays and their friends are mad at you. It's an interesting political choice you've made, seeing as the gay rights movement has gained unprecedented momentum since the (narrow) passing of Prop 8 in California. Them pesky gays aren't taking America's shit anymore, but you're going to try to give it to them anyway. I don't know much about Colorado, but it seems like a weird decision to me.

Anywayz, in regard to your little speech we all just heard, there are a few points I'd like to touch on:

I know I don't always succeed, but I do try not to tell people how to interpret the Bible. As I've said before, it's inherently a pick-and-choose kind of book, and different people will read it different ways. That said, I'm no fan of literal interpretation, particularly when it comes to Genesis. All conventional science and much of Christendom has come to accept the creation story from the Bible as something that is, as the Catholics put it, "spiritually true, but not historically true." And honestly, I do think it is ultimately a story. Every religion ever to exist on Earth ever has had a creation myth. It's natural for human beings to seek out an explanation as to where we come from. We're still looking for answers to that question today, but mainly through science. We've managed to figure out how species evolved (more or less), but we still don't know how life started in the first place.

See? There's your chance right there. We don't know how life started. So, if you take Genesis as a symbolic myth and not as something to be interpreted literally, you can say that that first spark of life was put there by God, and that He set in motion the sequence of events that would lead to life on Earth as it is today. If you open up your mind a little bit, you can make science and religion compatible (this goes for you too, people who say that you have to be an atheist to believe in evolution).

Now, I'm assuming that you're a creationist because it would be consistent with your speech. In retrospect, it's a poor assumption to make that you would be consistent about anything regarding faith (or anything else for that matter), but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. The reason I bring up the creation story is because you seem to take other parts of Genesis pretty literally. Specifically, you cite Genesis as proof that God meant man to be with woman. Period.

(Oh, and by the way, I take offense at being referred to as man's "helper." Thanks.)

As I said, it would be much easier for you to exist in the modern world if you could find it in your heart to see not only the symbolism in this story, but the way it likely evolved. The story fits with a nomadic desert tribe thousands of years ago. It fits with ancient oral tradition. It does not fit with life as we know it today. If you look at the evolution of the story, actually, you can see in earlier versions, the serpent was a god (that is, one of many), and the monotheists changed it to make him the villain. Just sayin'.

On to my favourite book of the Bible... Leviticus (imagine ominous music in the background). Leviticus? Again? Really?! What is with people and Leviticus? Since when did an ancient Jewish public health code (thanks, Chris) become the ultimate authority on Christian (and, by extension, American) life? I know all you gay-hater types like to throw Leviticus 18:22 around as though it's the ultimate proof that homosexuality is the worse sin ever and everything. But, as I've said before and will say again, it's pretty lame of you to throw that part of Leviticus around without holding the rest of it to the same standard (see this post). Where's your beard and curls, Scott? How do you feel about bacon?

To be fair, you've thrown another verse from Leviticus into your argument. Leviticus 20:13 says:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Nice one. I've heard it suggested that more literal translations of both these passages are referring to women sleeping with two different men, thus making it difficult (if not impossible) to determine the paternal line of her possible children (thank you, anonymous commentor), but that's neither here nor there. It's still Leviticus, and I still say Leviticus is an all-or-nothing deal. If you don't think it's kosh to sell your daughters into slavery, then you can't cite Leviticus as evidence that gays are an "abomination." Kay? Kay. Moving on...

The last verse you cited, Romans 1:18, says:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness

Not bad, Scott. Very ambiguous. It's a nice trick to pull. But Romans, as in The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, was written by Paul. Why don't we instead cite some verses that were actually (apparently) spoken by Christ? There is a recurring theme I think we should examine.

Matthew 23:29-31 (NIV):

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.

Matthew 5:11-12 (NIV):

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Matthew 15:1-9 (NIV):

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

The theme, of course, in these three passages is that it is the apparently righteous who are corrupt. They hold strong to tradition and therefore persecute the prophets, the new ideas, that end up being the catalyst for change. This is a theme we see throughout history. Those willing to stand up against the institution and say, "Times have changed. What you are doing is no longer the right thing to do," are often persecuted, and often murdered. Look at Martin Luther King Jr, look at the Kennedys, look at Ghandi... these people spoke for change, and for civil rights, and they were killed because of worn-out dogmas and exhausted ideals. Jesus Christ warned against people like you, Scott Renfroe. Do you really want to be the kind of person who, in the time of Christ, would have killed the very man to whom you pray every night? Is that what it means to be Christian?

And since you are not only Christian, but also American, I leave you with this, from the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In the end, it doesn't matter which parts of the Bible you believe, so long as you are able to do your job as a state senator in an appropriate manner. The job of the American government is not to outlaw sin. It is not to prevent "abomination according to the scripture". The job of the American government is to protect and take care of its citizens so that they may have all the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to which they are entitled. If you stand in the way of allowing that to happen, for all citizens, then you will find yourself on the wrong side of history, my friend. WTFWJD?

"They Are Christians and Follow The Scripture"

From The USC Daily Trojan:

On my fifth and final day rushing Alpha Gamma Omega, two AGO brothers confronted me about my sexuality. That is, two AGO brothers confronted, questioned and attacked my sexuality. Although I was honest with them about my being gay, I was made to feel extremely uncomfortable. From these conversations, it became inescapably clear that AGO would not extend a bid to me because I am gay, an instance of blatant homophobia.

This one just gets better and better:

He told me that he entered the fraternity a “broken man” and how the fraternity has helped him to improve. He also said that the fraternity is not affirming of homosexuality, because they are Christians and follow the scripture. He also said that since tomorrow is bid night, they want to know how my relationship with God is.

So, even though this kid professes to be a Christian, he can't join a "Christian" frat because his relationship with God is not so good. Apparently. Let's see what the Bible says.

Matthew 7:1-5 says:

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Kay, so kind of a "He who is without sin" deal. Too easy? How about this?

John 12:47 says:

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

So now we're not judging AND Jesus isn't judging. That really should do the trick, but just in case it doesn't, let's talk about what the Bible actually says about them gays. Here you'll find a douchebag website with douchebag Bible verses condemning homosexuality. I figured it'd be fun to pick them all apart. Let's see what transpires...

According to the New American Standard Bible, Leviticus 18:22 says:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

To be fair, this is pretty similar to what the King James version has to say in that particular verse, but I feel like we should probably take a look at some of the other shit in Leviticus to get a sense of perspecitve

Leviticus opens with:

And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.

It goes on and on, actually, describing various sacrifices in great detail. Some are to make amends for various sins and some are just for the hell of it. Either way, I can only assume you guys are all making sacrifices to the Lord in this way, right? Cuz it's totally not archaic or ridiculous or anything, right? That's what I thought. Moving on...

Leviticus 11:1-12 says:

And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

So Christians are all Kosher, right? No bacon? No shrimp cocktail? No?! BUT WHAT ABOUT LEVITICUS?!?! Man, you guys are in so much trouble.

Leviticus 12:1-7 says:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

Well that's just amazingly offensive, actually.

Leviticus 19:27-28 says:

Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

I assume, then, that every good Christian who values the poignant and relevant words of Leviticus walks around looking like my cousin Lippa the Rabbi and doesn't have any tattoos or anything. I mean, cuz Leviticus says so...

I think you get the point. We'll skip the next one because I'm pretty sure we've all had enough of ancient Jewish law that has nothing to do with Jesus (apart from the fact that those dicks at Nicea decided to throw it in the Bible).

According to the NASB version, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

And the King James?

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

"Abusers of themselves with mankind"? Mercytoall.net has an interesting take on this:

Its meaning is at best questionable. If it refers to homosexuals, the question arises why Paul would have used such an obscure and questionable term when he could have used other much clearer terms to describe what he meant. The Greek culture was filled with homoerotic words used to describe various homosexual relationships, but instead he used a word that does not appear anywhere in Greek homoerotic literature. Transliterated, the word arsenokoitai means “man-active-bed”. It could mean a male prostitute who takes the active role sexually. Modern day male prostitutes are differentiated by their trade, either for women, “gigolos” or for men, “hustlers”. Similarly, the Greeks also may have identified prostitutes by their trade. If Paul had wanted to condemn a group more inclined to be exclusively homosexual, he might have chosen the term arenokoitai (“man-passive-bed”) which would indicate a male prostitute who takes the passive role sexually.

The King James Version avoids a direct translation of this word with the phrase “abusers of themselves with mankind”, but it is interesting to note that even though the word homosexual did not exist at the time and wasn’t even coined until the late 19th century, a word existed in 1611 which if used by the King James translators would have left no question as to what they were talking about. This word is “invert”, which meant homosexual, but they did not use it. More in keeping with the context in both this passage and in 1 Timothy 1:10, a suggested better translation might be “rapist” since it has something to do with someone who takes the active role in the sex act.

So there's another one debunked. They actually pick apart the entire verse, and it's a pretty interesting read.

On to the next one...

According to the NASB version, Romans 1:26-27 says:

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

In the King James version, it's:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Again, it's pretty similar wording. According to religioustolerance.org, however, there are a few possible interpretations from the original text:

Some interpret the "men...with other men" clause to be a translation of the original Greek word for "pederasty" which was commonly practiced at the time by adult males with male children (often slaves). Thus Paul might have been criticizing child sexual abuse.

Well then, there's another strike against those baby-raping priests we keep hearing about.

Another interpretation:

From Paul's era, until today, many people have believed that the only natural, normal sexual activity was between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. Thus "unnatural" sex would include:

Anyone engaging in sex for pure enjoyment
Married couples who engaged in intercourse even though one or both partners were sterile.
Married couples who had sex even though the woman was not in the fertile part of her cycle, or was past childbearing years

Perhaps Paul's use of the phrase "para physin" (unnatural) simply meant that when the people engaged in same-sex practices, there was no procreative function to the behavior. Thus, it was unnatural.

Christians, take heed! Even if you're married, sex that isn't for the purpose of making babies is (possibly) strictly prohibited.

There are several other takes on the verse presented. Apparently, some also interpret "unnatural" acts as dominant/submissive relationships; the Archbishop of Cantebury says the whole passage is not, in fact, about sinning, but about law-abiding; and others claim that it's actually about abandoning Christianity for pagan religions. Either way, it's worth noting that the next chapter opens with:

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

So here we are again, douchebag "ex"-gay frat boys. Judge not lest ye be judged. That's WTF Jesus would do.