More, more, more.

Pure genius! Thank you Norm for posting clips and links that are refreshing to our eyes and ears. Reason bless you!

Thanks for the posting. I saw this episode and really appreciated the thrashing Sheen gave to the smug radio commentator.

It's become clear to me that most "people of faith" haven't actually ever read the bible themselves. This makes them "people of faith" of someone else's faith (who, presumably HAS read the bible). Of course, this might not even be true. In which case, most "people of faith" are merely delusional.

If someone can give me the season and episode this is taken from I'd like to get a better copy.

L'aura che verde Lauro e l'aureo crine

soavemente sospirando move,

fa con sue viste leggiadrette e nove

l'anima da'lor corpi pellegrini.

Or:

Where in the world can one be found so fair, this glory of our age? O hear this prayer:

Doctor, Doctor gimme the News! I've got a bad case of... something, don't know what it is, I know I didn't have it this bad when I was watching Rove dance with the stars.

Wow, that's just like the real president of the United States!!!

That segment was perfect - just wish she'd mentioned her degree was from Regent University. That would have been bonus points.

Pwned!!!11!!1 Sheen for president.

FUCKIN AWESOME PRESIDENT BARTLET

Ah, bloody marvellous ... DAMN, but I loved that show ... was seriously glued to it, which is weird given how little TV I watch.

But I remember that episode ... I could hold that dream about what a REAL president would be like all through the Bush administration...

You know, sometimes you NEED intellectual elites ...

Great post! Man, I wish that was reality! It should be. Hopefully, one day it will be. I like to take a similar approach when debating those who say: “well, the bible says such and such” as a means of justifying their abhorrence and intolerance. Read the entire instructions manual, word for word, if you expect these rules to apply to society. All or nothing, don’t cherry pick. Or, if you like parts of the bible but not all of it then admit that you’re cherry picking. When held to this kind of scrutiny, admitting that you follow the bible, word for word, is to admit insanity.

Word up Jef!

I don't watch TV, so I've never seen the West Wing, but that was great.

What strikes me the most is how that whole line of attack has been floating around the internet on websites as as chain emails for almost a decade now, and was used almost verbatim here.

In case anyone hasn't mentioned it yet, this came from season 2, episode 3 entitled "the midterms"

I remember thinking, when this episode first aired, how nice it would be to have a government, and a President, that was as inspiring as Jed Bartlett in the West Wing. Maybe it'll happen one day.

Wow. Nothing like the perfect fictionalized child's-conception of reality to stage the ultimate dressing-down of ersatz Dr. Laura. Such made-to-order pandering will surely service all detractors to cream their pants by the bucketful. The lightning touch perfectly underscores the overwrought drama of this Telemundo novella-style hack job. It's so very sophomoric and minimally EASY to put this SIMS vehicle in motion and watch it go-go-go!

So what, may I ask, is so horrible about stoning people who intermix crops side-by-side and two different types of twine in a garment? Such tawdry work is the ultimate display of disrespect to the tribe! C'mon people!

They had the most fantastic sense of humor in the Old Testament but Martin Sheen is so busy with that pole up his ass. Don't you know that God is playing to an audience that refuses to laugh?

I wrote a post on the blog Kmareka a few months ago using the same clip from The West Wing, albeit in a somewhat different context. The scene powerfully illustrates--thanks to the amazing writing of Aaron Sorkin--how ignorance and intolerance are all too often guised as religious doctrine and morality.

By the way, the scene is taken from the episode entitled "The Midterms," which originally aired on October 18, 2000 in the second season of The West Wing.

I was going to point out the reference to Dr. Laura, but FritzHeadSaid beat me to it. For those that are not aware of her background, she does have a PhD, but it is in cell physiology. Funny how putting the PhD before her name gives her credence in other people's eyes, even though her doctoral background gives her no backround for advice giving.

"Those of you who claim your religion is one of love and not like those hateful, demented, believers need to join in the condemnation."

So, let me get this straight: You are trying to fight hate-filled religions by. . . hating them? Brilliant. Let's hate the haters.

. . . or maybe not so bright after all, but rather predictable. Get you a god, and you're on your way to forming your own religion.

It's hard to imagine any of the current candidates for US President being as witty and educated as Bartlett.

So, let me get this straight: You are trying to fight hate-filled religions by. . . hating them? Brilliant. Let's hate the haters.

I said condemn them and sometimes ridicule them. Don't put words in my mouth. What the hell is the matter with you are not my words enough but that you have to distort them. Is it Christian charity or just beyond your control.

During Adlai Stevenson’s 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to him, “You have the vote of every thinking person!” Stevenson snapped back, “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!”

The problem is that no president in history -- probably no human in history -- could ever come up with a West Wing-style dialog more than once a month or so, and likely not until it was to late to deliver it. That's why we have books...and TV.

The bible is the religious folk's collection of platitudes and comebacks. Fortunately for us the christian god is no Aaron Sorkin.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with condemning them. I see nothing wrong with putting them to task to defend their beliefs.

I wonder if the respect given to the "good" Christians today was so generously applied to those who may not have directly supported fascism in pre-WWII Europe, but tolerated it.

Do you think anyone back then ever said, "Well I don't agree with them, but they have the right to believe what they want?" Do you think those same people were saying it when Jews, Roma, and homosexuals were being sent to "concentration camps?" Did they still say it when those same people were being put to death?

Those who tolerate even the slightest of oppression and bigotry are just as responsible for the outcome as those who support and practice it. Arguing that standing against people who tolerate hatred is just hatred in reverse is a failure of reason.

Your words were just fine, Norm. Don't let some tool try to engage you in a lame, relativist, semantic argument.

It's actually pretty funny because this clip of delusional liberal raving is a pretty spot-on synopsis of everything that is wrong with liberal America. All the points it missed, you covered with your self-important and ignorant summation.

Calling homosexuality an abominiation is not hate. No matter how much you want it to be, no matter how many times you say it is, it isn't. It's a completely valid position to occupy and one that has been occupied for most of history by most societies.

And the whole "the Bible says this contradictory thing and thus your quote can't stand" line holds no water - is it okay to murder then? I mean, after all, the Bible is full of contradictions! They must have been wrong on that one too!

Preachy, self-important idiots who want nothing more than to police your every thought and action. Used to be that only described what your type now term 'neocons', but the shoe is quite clearly on the other foot. All liberals do now is try to tell people what to think, what to say, how to act. And if you don't like how someone else thinks, you slam a pejorative label on it - like Sheen calling her statement 'ignorant', or the use of the word 'phobia' to describe the position.

Delusional. All of you. Self-important, delusional people who don't even realize your own fascist leanings.

NotReligiousButNotACrazyLiberal...

Yeah, you're not religious or "liberal", just crazy.

PLEASE keep an eye on this:

Best-selling Author Will 'Prove' God's Existence

After ABC ran a story in January about hundreds of atheists videotaping themselves blaspheming the Holy Spirit, best-selling author Ray Comfort contacted the network and offered to prove God's existence, absolutely, scientifically, without mentioning the Bible or faith.

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/385522925.html

This oughta be fun :D

We've all seen Ray's work. This will undoubtedly be amusing to say the least.

NotReligiousButNotACrazyLiberal: "All liberals do now is try to tell people what to think, what to say, how to act."

Funny...Isn't that religion's job?

Most of what was said by NotReligiousJustCrazy was trolling not worthy of retort, but there was a factual error I would like to address re: homosexuality.

It's a completely valid position to occupy and one that has been occupied for most of history by most societies

Wrong. I recall reading that many pre-Christian societies were pretty tolerant (even accepting) of homosexuality, including the Greeks, and IIRC their mythology incorporated a lot of different views on sexuality.

Many present-day countries less backwards than the USA are also quite accepting of gay people.

I'm sure someone here has the relevant references at hand to back that up if you really want to dispute these facts.

Even if homosexuality was demonized throughout history (which it was not), that gives no indication of the correctness of that belief. People believed the Earth was flat and the Sun orbited it, and that bloodletting was a cure for disease, for much of human history, after all.

NRBACL:

Um. What history and anthropology books have you been reading that tell you that most of history and most societies have held that homosexuality is an abomination? Because they're very wrong. Even if you were correct, it doesn't mean that we have to hold on to that position, and it certainly doesn't make it right. Most of history and most societies have practiced some form of human slavery, and that is certainly wrong.

If calling homosexuality an abomination is not hate, than what is it? And what, exactly, is it an abomination of?

And FWIW, you're damn right I want to shut up people who are bigoted. I live in a country that has historically been one that has ended up becoming more and more inclusive and tolerant, and I hope that it continues to do so. You can believe whatever backwards, xenophobic tripe you want to, but when you start trying to make it public policy, and when you start preaching it in the pulpit, you can rest assured that I'll be in my pulpit as well, fighting you every inch of the way.

You say that we're preachy, self-important idiots who want to police your every thought and action. Who are the people trying to ban homosexual unions? Who are the people saying that we should go and convert people in other countries to Christianity? Who are the people stopping people from boarding planes because they have a t-shirt with Arabic writing on it (and defending the action)? All of these are acts which do not effect you in anyway, and yet there are those who believe they are justified.

The things I which to "police" are things which move us toward intolerance, bigotry, and ultimately oppression.

I would never support anything that tried to legally ban religion, or freedom of expression. I will, however, argue with people who hold views that I know are dangerous to society. I'll also oppose any policy that endeavors to restrict or oppress people who are not dangerous to society. And I do not care what holy book says that their beliefs are "valid."

No, i don't want for any government to every abolish the religions of the people, but I'll never sit idly by when those religions attempt to worm their way into governments. To try to shut down religions or limit speech through public policy would, indeed be wrong (not to mention ineffective). I hope to see the day, however, that people are embarrassed to publicly declare their wacko and intolerant views.

this is great! i dont watch tv regularly (currently because i live in chile and it's pretty tough to understand whats on regular tv), but this is great stuff. i love to see people... especially people in power... questioning assumptions!

C'mon guys, NotReligiousButNotACrazyLiberal is either delusional, or a troll -- in either case, not worthy of your time.

"Wrong. I recall reading that many pre-Christian societies were pretty tolerant (even accepting) of homosexuality, including the Greeks, and IIRC their mythology incorporated a lot of different views on sexuality."

You presume to state that I am wrong, but obviously do so with no conviction. Because all you can state is the word 'many' a couple of times. This does not refute the point. The fact remains that homosexuality is one of the most universally reviled behaviors known to mankind.

"Even if homosexuality was demonized throughout history (which it was not), that gives no indication of the correctness of that belief."

What your type fail to understand is that this doesn't mean the opposite is true. It doesn't mean we should just 'accept' everything. Disregarding the obvious problem with such a mentality, it is not your right in a free society to tell me how to think about an issue. You can share your opinion, we can debate it, we can argue about it. But where we differ is that you are participating in an active campaign to vilify those who think differently than you. Where is your precious tolerance?

"If calling homosexuality an abomination is not hate, than what is it?"

A statement of opinion. Just like saying football is boring is not hate, or country music sucks is not hate.

"And FWIW, you're damn right I want to shut up people who are bigoted."

Then you do not believe in the very tenets of the country in which you live. Maybe you should read the fucking club charter, pal. Because the copy I've read says everyone has the right to speak their mind. Speech is not a crime, no matter how much people like you want to make it so.

"You can believe whatever backwards, xenophobic tripe you want to, but when you start trying to make it public policy, and when you start preaching it in the pulpit, you can rest assured that I'll be in my pulpit as well, fighting you every inch of the way."

By trying to make your beliefs policy and preaching it from the pulpit. Are you really incapable of seeing the hypocrisy, or are you just apathetic towards it?

The most ludicrous part of your position is that you have the temerity to assert that those who shun homosexuality are the ones trying to change policy, or trying to ban things. You can't ban what doesn't exist. Nobody is 'banning' same-sex marriage because there is no such thing. You can't be in the club. You made the decision to behave in a way that excludes you. Not my problem.

"To try to shut down religions or limit speech through public policy would, indeed be wrong (not to mention ineffective)."

And yet the people you support work towards this very goal every day. Where do you think the idiotic concept of 'hate crimes' came from? Who has been behind the push to destroy marriage and encourage deviant sexual behavior - and who has the gall to call those who simply disagree and vote their beliefs and otherwise behave like civilized members of a democratic society 'bigots' and 'intolerant' and all that crap?

"I hope to see the day, however, that people are embarrassed to publicly declare their wacko and intolerant views."

What you'd love is a day when everyone agrees with you or shuts up. That's the whole point of this website. Don't think I don't get it. It's why whenever someone comes here and disagrees with you, they're called a 'troll'. Why anyone who doesn't have an opinion that perfectly reflects Jon Stewart's or Bill Maher's, they're just an idiot. It's a gigantic circle jerk.

I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you this: some people are going to have a different opinion than you. Regarding the original topic, I have no problem stating that I consider homosexuality to be a perverse and deviant act, perpetrated by people with some form of emotional disturbance or other behavioral defect. And yet I'm not out there campaigning for laws to outlaw it - it's your life to screw up. Keep it to yourself, and stop complaining to me because your behavior means you might get made fun of sometimes or won't always get what you want. Boo fucking hoo.

Wow, am I happy to live in europe. It would be so sad to have to deal with people like "NotReligiousBut NotACrazyLiberal" all the time... Don't get me wrong, I think the US is a fascinating country full of wonderfull people, and am looking forward to visit it soon, but I cannot help but to get the impression that you have a major problem with those stupid/gaybashing religious idiots. I mean, what the fuck is wrong with them? Its none of someones fucking business, what gender OTHER PEOPLE THEY DONT EVEN KNOW prefer to sleep with. What gives them the damn right to degrade other citizens by labeling what they are "immoral"? It just boggles my mind, what about that "country of freedom, everybody has the pursuit of happiness"-thing? If you forbid adult people who love each other to marry, you constrict their most basic right. What civilised government would do that?

Oh, and calling a Person an "abomination" is far more insulting than saying "football sucks". It is so fucking piteous how guys like NotReligiousBut(...) try to debase other men just to feel superior to them, because that is all this is about, dont even try to tell my otherwise.

Let's get something straight.

Pronunciation: bäm n sh n Function: noun Inflected Form(s): -s Etymology: Middle English abominacioun, from Middle French abomination, from Late Latin abomination-, abominatio, from Latin abominatus + -ion-, -io -ion 1 : something that is abominable 2 : a feeling of extreme disgust and hatred : ABHORRENCE, DETESTATION, LOATHING

The derivitive is abominable

Pronunciation: bäm()nbl Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin abominabilis, from abominari + -abilis -able 1 : worthy of or causing loathing or hatred : revoltingly unnatural : DETESTABLE, LOATHSOME

Now you may not like the word NotReligiousButNotACrazyLiberal, but it is in fact "Hatred." Look it up. If that is n't what you want to say then pick some other word.

I'd respond to everything else but it's too damn late, I'm too damn tired and you're too damn self-righteous to even bother.

All caps emphasis are Webster's

Brilliant!! The only problem I have is that most people with a PhD in English Literature would be much more conscious of the ambiguities and discrepencies in texts (including The Bible) than this woman was.

Unless she got her degree from (cough) Regent University ...

NRBNACL wrote:

"You presume to state that I am wrong, but obviously do so with no conviction. Because all you can state is the word 'many' a couple of times. This does not refute the point. The fact remains that homosexuality is one of the most universally reviled behaviors known to mankind."

But how much of this revulsion is directly attributable to the irrational condemnations homosexuality receives from the Holy books of the 3 big monotheistic religions? It is interesting to note that those societies who display the least tolerance for homosexuality are also the most unwaveringly religious. It's a sure bet that homosexuals would lead safer lives if they were not persecuted as "abominations" by organized religion.

Why the Bible condemns homosexuality in such strong terms is a mystery. Presumably, the author of Leviticus thought it was "icky" and that was that. Still, Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality should be viewed in the light of the following facts:

1) The Bible was written by deranged, sand strewn primitives in an age when the wheelbarrow would have been regarded as an exemplar of technological innovation.

2) The list of Biblical condemnations is long, tedious, and so utterly bereft of rhyme or reason that believers stopped following 99.9% of it centuries ago. The hounding of homosexuals by religious believers exemplifies nothing so much as the inconsistent way they treat their most sacred document - latching on to certain verses while ignoring others.

3) There is no God.

"What your type fail to understand is that this doesn't mean the opposite is true. It doesn't mean we should just 'accept' everything.

And what your type fails to understand, is that freedom of speech and freedom of action are two way streets.

If you feel that your freedom of speech is being abridged because it is no longer socially acceptable to call gays faggots in public, it is only because people like me have used our freedom of speech to help guarantee homosexuals a hassle-free existence. That's how public discourse works. The pressure you are feeling to conform to a particular perception of homosexuality is the end result of a vast public debate about the legitimacy of homosexuality. This debate has raged in almost every conceivable venue, from the Houses of Congress to middle class dining rooms, from the pulpit to the office of the President. Your side lost. An inevitable consequence of your side losing is that people like you are more likely to get rhetorically bitch slapped when you speak out against homosexuality. Of course, you are still free to speak out about it, but the backlash will be a strong one. The practice of sexual bigotry is slowly being viewed in the same light as the practice of racial bigotry. Inevitably, it will become more difficult to be a sexual bigot as the years go by. In another 20 years your complaint will be as ridiculous as those of a KKK wizard complaining that he can't wash his robes at the dry-cleaners anymore. That's tough titty for you guys, but good news for most people.

"It is not your right in a free society to tell me how to think about an issue."

Okay, let's take this principle and run with it for a bit. When you blundered into this thread you announced, clearly and unequivocally, that homosexuality was repulsive. What was this if not an attempt to tell me how to think about homosexuals? Now, if, as you contend, no-one has the right to tell anyone how to think about an issue, you must accept that you both abused your rights and encroached upon my freedoms.

Your principle is stupid. Deeply stupid. 99.9% of public discourse consists of people telling other people how to think. I have every right to tell you how to think. You have every right to tell me how to think. Both of us have every right to tell the other to go to hell. And that's OK.

The line is crossed when people use violence, or the threat of violence, to shut people up. Unless your opinion of homosexuals has gotten you your ass kicked you really don't have much basis for a complaint. Even if your opinion of homosexuals has gotten you beaten up, this doesn't give you the right to claim that society in general is persecuting you.

"You can share your opinion, we can debate it, we can argue about it. But where we differ is that you are participating in an active campaign to vilify those who think differently than you."

Bullshit. I have every legal right to condemn anti-homosexual bigotry in the strongest language imaginable. I have every legal right to encourage others to do likewise. I also have the right to call you an asshole while I do it. If you don't like this, I suggest you vote with your feet and move to a country where freedom of speech is more strictly regulated.

Anti-gay bigotry is a pernicious social ill. It gets people beaten, killed, evicted, and ostracized every single day in America. Gay teens are killing themselves at a faster rate than any demographic in the nation, largely due to the prevalence of opinions like yours. Not only do I have the legal right to vilify your position, I have a moral obligation to do so.

"Where is your precious tolerance?"

You presume it absent? On what grounds? Do you not have the legal right to expose yourself as a bigot? Do you not have the right to picket the funerals of gay people who died of AIDS? Do you not have the right to vote against equal rights for homosexual couples? Of course, you have the right to do all these things. So why are you bitching about intolerance? As long as you have the legal right to say what you are saying, your perspective is tolerated by society. You may feel you are losing the moral right to say what you are saying, but that's because your position is immoral. It harms people who do you no harm, just because you find their private, consensual behaviour to be "icky".

If your opinion were not tolerated you would find yourself being treated in the same manner as European Holocaust deniers, who are thrown in jail for expressing their opinion. As it stands, you have the right to proclaim your moral bankruptcy from the hilltops of every town in America without fear of legal censure and the worst thing you risk is someone else calling you an asshole. It sounds like your ignominious opinions are actually tolerated pretty well in America.

"Speech is not a crime, no matter how much people like you want to make it so."

Quick, someone call the waaaaaahhmbulance. We have a whiny drama queen in urgent need of a spine donor.

Please, give it a rest. No-one is trying to make your viewpoint illegal. Stop making yourself look more hysterical and paranoid than you already do.

"Nobody is 'banning' same-sex marriage because there is no such thing. You can't be in the club. You made the decision to behave in a way that excludes you. Not my problem."

Actually, there is such a thing as same sex marriage. It's legal in Massachussetts and civil society hasn't broken down. It's also legal in the UK and much of Europe. In the developed world America stands alone as the most powerful industrialized nation to still discriminate against homosexuals in this way. This is pretty ironic considering the amount of time and money the American Government has spent promoting the U.S.A. as the land of the free.

Let me spell it out for you. The inability of homosexuals to enter into legal marriage contracts deprives them of a great many rights enjoyed by married couples. In much of America, a terminally ill homosexual can't die peacefully in the knowledge that his partner will inherit his belongings, because without a legal basis for their relationship there is no legal basis for the inheritance to pass to anyone who is not the dying man's next of kin. Homosexuals have been reduced to such absurd measures as legally adopting one another in order to ensure that they can inherit one another's belongings.

It is a sad fact to acknowledge, but in the eyes of the law, the monogamous relationship of a homosexual couple who have been together thirty years has less legitimacy than the comical culmination of a weekend long bender that was Britney Spears's first marriage.

If the club permits marriages of convenience but bars committed homosexual couples then there is something wrong with the club. That would actually be OK if it weren't for the fact that being in the club confers rights and privileges on its members that non-members don't get. This is unfair. Plain and simple. It is an immoral inequity which needs to be changed.

"Who has been behind the push to destroy marriage and encourage deviant sexual behavior"

I can't believe that anyone can consider marriages of convenience, can consider the ease with which divorces can be procured in America today, can consider the hustling, predatory matrimonial practices of the late Anna Nicole Smith and millions of men and women like her, and can consider Las Vegas, where marriage has been virtually industrialized, and say with a straight face that homosexual marriage will spell death for the institution. Marriage is fucked, pal. Letting gay people do it can't possibly make it any more of a joke than straight people have made it over the years. Moreover, if you were really concerned about the sanctity of marriage, you'd be on message boards pontificating on the evils of divorce instead.

"and who has the gall to call those who simply disagree and vote their beliefs and otherwise behave like civilized members of a democratic society 'bigots' and 'intolerant' and all that crap?"

Look, if you can use your freedom of speech to espouse an ideology which gets people beaten, killed, and ostracized on a daily basis, we can use ours to call you an asshole. Grow up, deal with it, and stop bitching about your poor widdle feewings. You make yourself look like a pussy and you trivialize the dead.

"It's why whenever someone comes here and disagrees with you, they're called a 'troll'."

Yet more crybaby nonsense.

"I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you this: some people are going to have a different opinion than you. Regarding the original topic, I have no problem stating that I consider homosexuality to be a perverse and deviant act, perpetrated by people with some form of emotional disturbance or other behavioral defect."

And I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you this: I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you this: Some people are going to have negative opinions about your opinions. And they may express their disdain in language you may not want to repeat in front of your mother. That doesn't mean that you are being censored in any way. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.

"And yet I'm not out there campaigning for laws to outlaw it - it's your life to screw up."

Good. Finally, some sense.

"Keep it to yourself, and stop complaining to me because your behavior means you might get made fun of sometimes or won't always get what you want. Boo fucking hoo."

Right back atcha, buddy. Be a bigot if you want, but keep it under wraps if you don't want people calling you on it.

I would have just said "WASTELAND" but suit yourself. ;)

And just because the argument was raised as to societies accepting gays, the two most famous ones I can think of at the top of my head are these: Ancient Greece and Native Americans. I'd post more but I'm not going to do homework for bigoted idiots.

To paraphrase Voltaire, I disagree with what NRBNACL says in the strongest measure, but I will defend to the death his right to spew such nonsense.

Fuck censorship.

French Sociologist Émile Durkheim observed that religion was the root of science. Religion, he said, was the first human attempt to systematically explain the world. Durkheim thought that religious rationality would wither away in modern times (for him, the early twentieth century) because scientific rationality would replace it, by virtue of its superior explanatory power.

Please watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIqk4agzKPE

And, since we are quoting Voltaire “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire (1694-1778)

I see no problem with using this argument against someone who uses theology to justify their position against gay marriage, or homosexuality altogether - you can't simply pick out the parts of the Bible that you like to justify your political positions, and dismiss out of hand the ones that you think are outdated and cruel, like the horrific violence it condones.

While I agree with NotReligious about the word 'hate,' a lot of people who are against homosexuality and equal marriage use the kinds of arguments used by people on the religious right to justify their hatred towards homosexuals. Especially men (which I am), who are mostly insecure about their sexuality. I had a few gay friends in high school and their sexuality never became a serious issue to me, but I still felt uncomfortable around them sometimes and some of my male friends wouldn't talk to me when I was with them, and one female friend who was very religious. I never accused any of them of hating homosexuals, but that was the vibe I got, especially from the guys.

However, I also accept that being tolerant of people includes tolerance of those who are intolerant - therefore, I respect one's right to be racist, homophobic or prejudiced in any other way. Some liberals forget this when it comes to opponents of homosexuality and abortion, for example.

Just a note. Simply saying that homosexuality is something that is has been an abomination to all societies is in fact wrong. If you actually look at many of ancient societies, you'd realize that homosexuality was actually accepted before any Christian influence. I'm referencing societies like the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, or Japanese. Most of these societies were around longer than Christianity.

...and since when did saying that something was rejected centuries ago become a basis for rejecting it now? Almost every one of the things that make the modern societies of Europe and North America better than those of the rest of the world were opposed by the majority of the population, some as recently as in the last 100 years - electricity and the steam locomotive during the Industrial Revolution, vaccination, equal rights for women, anti-slavery, non-segregation, etc.

If you want a society that follows values and traditions dating back hundreds or thousands of years, you should start thinking about moving to Saudi Arabia or Iran.

1984-

Good link. Did you notice the end?

According to recent polls 12% of Americans do not have a belief in a Higher Power, up from 8% in 1987 (that group includes agnostics). In Europe the rise of atheism and agnosticism is stunning, where according to a Zukerman study, in Sweden as many as 85% of the population are non-believers, Japan 65%, France 54% and in Britain 44% do not believe in God.

Where have I heard that before?

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/04/richarddawkins9.html

Thought you guys might enjoy this

Abomination was previously meant to mean "not in accordance with tradition", and "virgin" was a poor translation from "young woman".

Some wolf packs have homosexual sex when they become overpopulated.

Some cultures have grown men having sex with young boys as a "coming of age" ritual.

Some cultures are poligamist in nature, with a man having sex with lots of women, and the women taking care of each other and the man.

I'm sure that CRAZY would prefer women to stay in the kitchen, make babies, and "nuclear" families are the only viable way to survive.

Moron.

Some wolf packs have homosexual sex when they become overpopulated.

Let alone these.

Some cultures have grown men having sex with young boys as a "coming of age" ritual.

Tribes like the Etoro did that mostly for religious purposes and not so much as an acceptance. The "belief" that this would make their young "viral warriors." Same can be said like the ancient greek culture I mentioned earlier when dealing with their army. However, with all beliefs aside, there are societies where homosexuality is neither imposed as a mandatory belief requisit nor condemned to the point of torture and murder of populations of them. It is when beliefs come into the picture that begin to create a protocol on how sexuality must be managed.

Oh, hellhammer, it was actually I (One Hell-of-an-evil Axis) who beat FritzHeadSaid to the Dr. Laura reference, not that it matters that no one understood or noticed (I thought EVERYONE knew it was Dr. Laura, without pointing out), but Fritz, and the few minimally aware commentators in this sequence exhibit what I think may be the root of our current troubles (iraq, bush, lots and lots of FUN-damentalism,etc.):

We, collectively, but also individually, are a bunch of numbskulls:

Numb

Skulls.

The collections of trivia and oddities that our skulls are filled with do not dot-connect, coalesce, into an UberGestalt (Gestalt of Gestalts) with out a corresponding FEELING.

We just don't get it, we "know" a lot, more and more, but we don't feel it. An odd collection of facts (and figures) does not add up to actual awareness if you don't feel it properly.

It is a form of mental illness that Dr. Laura is ill-equipped to deal with, in that she herself is conspicuously numb in the skull.

Those few minimally aware posters, above are conspicuous not for their awareness, but for the MINIMALness of their awareness. Where's the affect?

Contrast the feeling in the (Petrarcan) poetry (in my original post, in its original) of an other age, an age at the very opposite pole of feeling/awareness. Norm's comments accompanying the video clip are also exemplary of what would also seem to be more appropriate affect (feelings). More Normal.

Also check out the middle video of the trio with Bill Moyers and John Stewart, HellHam

mer.

Does anyone else get the urge to say ...

Amen!

Chan, your response was one of the best I have read. Rock on!

And Erick, thanks for the M.Cho video. She is totally right. Many of the republicans probably don't really care about the gay marriage issue, but they use it to get the values votes from the ignorant bigots that make up such a large part of this country. It's all a game to them. Fuckers.

Excellent post.

I don't think anyone has mentioned this in the above comments, but the main point of flinging ridiculous strictures from the Bible back at Christians is to remind them that they (ok many, but not all...) believe the Bible IS THE WORD OF GOD. ALL of it. So if you are a Christian you must believe that all the ridiculous stuff in the Bible is absolute, and to believe some and not the others is to edit God. THAT IS BLASPHEMY. How come Christians seem to constantly skate around that one?

great thread. yeah, sarah, i also enjoyed chans' response immensely. at the risk of someone thinking i'm coming to defend mr. notaliberal (heaven forfend!) i'd like to point out that chan's parting shot, "Right back atcha, buddy. Be a bigot if you want, but keep it under wraps if you don't want people calling you on it.", is essentially a restatement of mr. notaliberal's position on homosexuality, if i understood him correctly. fair enough.

r.e. derek morey's excellent summation of the definition of "abomination", i guess its my job here to point out that there is no literal translation of the hebrew word "to'eva" in english, but abomination is a pretty bad one that has caused no end of pain and misery throughout the ages, as have many other such "translations". i don't claim to have a full understanding of the word, having learned from the rabbis of old who themselves are in disagreement about it, but it would behoove us to remember that, as some of the more learned readers of 1gm have pointed out before, the same word is used to describe shellfish, so chances are whatever you think it means, it isn't that. i would say, forbidden and ONLY THEREFORE undesirable- but i like chan's use of "icky". it puts "abomination" in perspective.

but all this isn't what i came here to say. which is:

first a disclaimer. i love president bartlett and west wing, and i hate dr. laura, insofar as its possible to hate her,never having heard her show. but i've read about her, and she claims to be an orthodox jew and spreads her hate from behind a particularly dogmatic and fiercely cherry-picked version of orthodox judaism. she is, as far as i'm concerned, the enemy. which brings me to my point: (thanks for hanging in there.)

a large part of bartletts' rhetorical argument, coming as it is from a character supposedly well-versed in the bible (as indeed dr. "jacobs" is supposed to be) consists of what i call the red herring argument. there are plenty of powerful arguments for the stupidity, cruelty and capriciousness of the commandments in the bible (which orthodox jews will tell you are based on misunderstandings and make the text jump through hoops to convince you of this) but the simple fact is, they are almost all specifically directed at the jewish people (known at the time of the revelation as the children of jacob).

if the dr. lauras (and pat robertsons, etc., etc.) of the world would bring this simple fact (which they must be aware of) to the forfront of their consciousnesses and integrate it into their rudimentary understandings, it would save us all a lot of trouble. and it wouldn't hurt the atheists of the world, also, to remember it, as it would help them hone their arguments and get rid of a lot of the chaff.

thanks for your patience, y'all.

"i'd like to point out that chan's parting shot, "Right back atcha, buddy. Be a bigot if you want, but keep it under wraps if you don't want people calling you on it.", is essentially a restatement of mr. notaliberal's position on homosexuality, if i understood him correctly."

i'm sorry, i didn't realize at the time i wrote that how very obvious it was. chan was clear. my bad.

Chan, that was a beautiful post and it seems to have done the trick. Where's the troll? :)

And the whole "the Bible says this contradictory thing and thus your quote can't stand" line holds no water - is it okay to murder then? I mean, after all, the Bible is full of contradictions! They must have been wrong on that one too!

You know, call me quirky, but I was raised without the bible and never had to be told that murder was wrong. Fantastic point - that one has to get their morality from a book. You know, one could live a good life and be a good person just to be a good person...not because the bible says they get goodies after they die...or because they are threatened with eternal torture if they don't comply. Please.

Also clarrisa, it proves that he grossly missed the conclusion. Should we say that because the Bible errs here conclude that killing is ok? Of course not. It only proves that the Bible is not a reliable source of morality--especially when making the claim that it is one of our best sources for it or that it is inspired by a perfect deity. I think I'll stop stabbing a dead corpse and just leave you with this quote by Harris:

If a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn’t make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

the immediately above comments harmonize nicely with my pet theory that the Bible is an artificial Conscience.

What kind of people need an Artificial conscience?