Just another example of American right-wing ideology being peddled to the Third World.

There is no evidence in this story that any of these three men agree with the death penalty for gays. What the Times is trying to infer is that repeating where God says that homosexuality is wrong and why leads to things like murder, and that homosexuality needs to be lifted up instead of put down. Not only that, it is trying to smear Christians in general. I suppose a story where people prayed and a child's brain tumor suddenly disappared wouldnt even make their pages. It would be embarrassing for them to try to offer an explanation of why the prayer didnt really help.

Clay,

Please don't tell us that you somehow think that the Ugandan proposal to execute Gay men and women means that homosexuality "leads to things like murder."

Know that homosexuality leads to love and committment between human beings.

Yes, just as is true of heterosexuality, homosexuality *can* provide an impetus for every nasty passion of which humankind is capable. But Gay people surely don't "own" that alone.

What leads to murder is intolerance, ignorance, pride, narrrow-mindedness, and hate -- qualities manifest in the teachings of *some* Christians, some of whom are now furiously back-peddling from the horrors they unleashed in Uganda.

"I suppose a story where people prayed and a child's brain tumor suddenly disappared wouldnt even make their pages."

Whenever the alleged face of Jesus appears on toast, in hobo piss under the turnpike or anywhere else, it makes the pages.

And apparently you've never heard of Scott Lively's holocaust revisionist book "The Pink Swastika". Or the fact that Exodus International was LINKING to his book until they were called out on it a few months ago.

First of all, I was saying that the Times was inferring that opposition to homosexuality on the part of Christians who mean well and dont want murder can lead to murder. Second, who cares if someone sees Christ in their toast? Satan has all kinds of tricks. Let the Times print stories where someone accepting Christ has changed their life. I honestly dont remember too many of those in the Times. I would rather read that than any book gone awry. The bible is the best book to read. Thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/20dirt.html?scp=24&sq=miracle&st=cse

They're trying. Keep moving ahead, not behind.

I note from a non-american site that the death penalty is for homosexual rape (statuatory, using Drugs, or force) sex with AIDS. In other words it was stuff that I'm surprised that the Gay movement wants to endorse.

Oooh.... the Evangelicans in this country have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Need I remind people that it is ILLEGAL for people to try and interfere in the poltics of foreign countries in any way whatsoever unless they are doing so on the orders of the President of the United States or Congress?

Some people are asking for jail time in this case if this can be traced back to them.

To the people who support laws like this.... you are idiots of the first caliber, and wastes of humanity, to be totallly blunt and honest about what I think about you.

People who support laws like this arent Christian, and if they call themselves Christian the truth is not in them.

I had been talking about this before the NYT--and the great Anonymous of these blogs has been having a running argument with me on the issue. Keep repeating like a mantra that homosexuality is a sin condemned by the Bible, then without intending to (although I believe the damn evangelicals fully intended to achieve these results) you incite damage against homosexuals--even if Clay's brainless arguments were bought, even if one concedes that the US evangelicals may not have done anything premeditated or deliberate against homosexuals, this death edict becomes an unintended consequence of "Hate the sin but love the sinner!" The American evangelicals are neck deep in provocation of trouble in parts of the world where dictators rule, the rule of law is not sacrosanct and it is easy to push their agenda. Squawk all you want Clay, the NYT doesn't have to write about the joys of accepting Christ. That's for you to do--a Christian, a fanatic and a drone witness for the cause. OK Lioren--great discovery. Why only target homosexuals with death sentence for rape with spread of AIDS as collateral damage? Heterosexuals do not rape? Heterosexuals cannot spread AIDS through forced sex? The law of a land should be fair--it cannot target any one group with mandatory death for crimes that all people are capable of committing-and do commit- regardless of sexual preference.
Ravensfan Anon

If you truly hate the sin but love the sinner then you dont let the death penalty be a consequence for homosexuality. The problem is partly that being loved by evangalicals is seen by homosexuals as a death sentence. Their sexual ways have to die in order to be obedient to God. Many would say that they would just as soon prefer to die. Thanks.

Clay,

I have tried to make this point to you before ... but I'll try one last time.

My homosexuality is just as much a part of my intrinsic nature as is your heterosexuality (and just as much a "choice"). The "love" offered by evangelicals would have me lie for the rest of my life (just as I did for the first forty years of my life). Surely this is not what god wants.

[I realize I am speaking to a deaf man....]

There is a very, very long history of anti-gay hostility in Christanity (as well as certain other religious traditions), and this is hardly the first time that such ideology has led to the prospect of violence and death for homosexual people.

Although fundamentalist evangelicals can be expected to remain clueless about the harmful effect of their beliefs on other people, is it asking too much of more rational, reasonable, moderate religious people to understand the influence of their seemingly benign anti-gay religious belief to a culture of outright hatred, violence and death against gay people?

Such "benign" beliefs also contribute to the suicide deaths of too many young, vulnerable gay kids, who cannot help but internalize the negativity and rejection. How do I know that? Because I was one of the many who survived.

No, God doesnt want you to lie, but He says over and over in the bible that He doesnt want you to be gay either. If doing what He says results in hatred and suicides, that isnt what He wants or me either. I hope that is clear also. Sometimes people dont want it to be clear because they like to have someone to blame problems on. It isnt God's fault or the fault of those who properly attempt to apply His word. Like I said, if people contribute to hatred then they arent doing what God wants. I wouldnt call that a true Christian at all. For God not to set rules and not care about us and let us do whatever we want, whether we feel born that way with no choice or not, would not be a very good way for Him to treat us. He says to choose what He wants, regardless of your circumstances. For a Christian to not tell you the right way would be to do you a tremendous disservice. Eternity is a long time to spend anywhere. Thanks.

Ravensfan Anon - So you admit that you have nothing to support your original claim that there were Christian groups who supported and called for this horror yet still want to blame Christianity for it. Do you hate Christianity that much that you need to keep advocating something clearly not true? It’s bigoted thinking like that which causes the kind of reprehensible actions that are now taking place in Uganda. It sounds like you are the one doing squawking trying desperately to blame Christianity for what are clearly acts which violate one of what Christ called the greatest of the commandments. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Anonymous,
You have a terrible problem with English comprehension--I admitted nothing--I said EVEN if one bought Clay's arguments to vindicate the Evangelicals--I DON'T buy them--the Christians have been classic rascals against gays and women--and they will continue to play destructive roles in the lives of those who don't fit their buy-bull agenda--Uganda is case in point.
Ravensfan Anon

Ravensfan Anon - I have no problem with anything. For someone as narrow of mind as you that as close as you would ever come to admiting you have nothing. Who exactly are you that anyone should care what you accept? Prove your point and maybe what you say might have some merit. Otherwise it's nothing more than a rant from blind rage.

Did everyone just completely miss this statement:

"I note from a non-american site that the death penalty is for homosexual rape (statuatory, using drugs, or force) sex with AIDS."

My question is, why are Christians or anyone on this site cringing from agreeing with this penalty? After all it is not for Homosexual behavior it is for Homosexual rape by a person who knowingly has aids!

Further

I am a Christian and I do not hate Homosexuals but I do know that via God's Word Homosexuality is a sin. And since it is a sin God has provided a cure for it, via faith through his son Jesus Christ! The problem today is that people have become so hardened in their sin and love their sin so much that they do not want the cure! Instead they want to dilute the cure so much that it becomes ineffective!

God can and does heal people of homosexuality just as he heals people of other sins. But it first requires a person to die to their own selfish desires. And that is something which very few people are willing to do!

This problem is further Exacerbated by pseduo-Christians who are opposed to Homosexuality but who themselves have not died to their own selfish desires and therefore do not have within them the indwelling of the Holy spirit which is required in order to reach people in the way God intended.

Lastly speaking the Truth in Love is not hatred for someone. Telling someone Homosexuality is wrong is not hatred. Nor can it be blamed for inciting hatred by others.

God tells us what is wrong in his word: The Bible because he loves us and wants us to avoid the things that harm ourselves and others. It is the same thing as a parent teaching a child what is right and what is wrong. The parent does it because of their love for their child! So the child knows how to avoid the wrong things so they do not cause harm to themselves or others.

You would be the first person in the world Anonymous who has no problems with anything.

"For someone as narrow of mind as you that as close as you would ever come to admiting you have nothing"--now this Anonymous, from your typing finger, is not a sentence and barely makes sense, but irony of ironies, seems to exemplify you. You have self insight Anonymous. Congrats.

"Who exactly are you that anyone should care what you accept?" Same to you Anonymous.

John, why don't you scroll up and read what Bankstreet has written and what I have written to see some of the counterpoints to your rant?
Ravensfan Anon

Ravensfan Anon - Thanks for pointing out my editing errors. That's what I get for attempting to show a little respect. Maybe I should hire you as my personal assistant then you can proof all my correspondence.

Let me correct those comments for you. Someone as arrogant, ignorant & narrow minded as you would never admit when you could not back up your biased opinion. Now for the second one who exactly are you that anyone should care what you buy. Does that work better for you? Now back to the issue can not provide anything to support your jaded opinions or is it just rambling?

Anonymous,
I now have the perfect moniker for you--"Nemesis of Ravensfan Anon, Anon". That sounds much more poetic--anyway just switch off among the tender titles I have hatched for you to distinguish yourself from lesser Anonymouses--now don't veer off on a tangent and tell me you don't need me to invent titles for you--I know Anonymous--I don't mean to insult the fertility of your great mind--but I am merely afraid that one of these days an Anonymous similar to you may pop on these blogs and sow pandemonium among those who have grown fond of your irascible style. I don't care who the hell cares what I buy Anonymous and you shouldn't either--you are the one straying from the topic Anon--to me it is not possible to love the sinner and condemn the sin--Bankstreet here is gay and has clearly stated that such religious hypocrisies have done nothing more than breed anti-gay sentiments and are a rejection and condemnation of what is part and parcel of who he is--the inevitability of who he is--I understand what he says and I agree and sympathize with him. You have a problem Anonymous because my nod to Bankstreet does not fit your religious agenda or are you challenging me because your gut instinct orders you to do so?
Ravensfan Anon

I have to admit I feel a little strange being used as fodder in this debate. Complimented ... but a little strange.

I would, though, like to hear a response from Anonymous (and Clay, for that matter) to my larger point: that, because my being Gay is intrinsic to me (god-given by some definition) and, therefore does not incorporate any "choice" on my part (except the choice to be honest), it is not a moral issue. Morality necessitates an element of choice. Murder is a moral issue. Theft is a moral issue. Abortion is a moral issue. Homosexuality simply is not.

I posit that homosexaulity will be less of a moral issue within the larger community once this absence of choice is understood. However, there is also the matter of the "ick factor." Folk find it easy to condemn in others that which they find unattractive, even repulsive for themselves. As most folk do not experience same-sex attraction, condemnation comes easily ... and can be sustained by handy scripture. The converse is also true: the scriptural sanction against pork was easy to put aside, weren't they, once the pharisees got a taste for bacon....

Ravensfan Anon - Call me whatever you like. You were the one who chose not to answer my question in the first place. You made an accusation never backed it up and somehow have deluded yourself that you proved your point. Actually it is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin. We are all sinners at times and no one should ever be hated. Why drag Bankstreet into this discussion? I don’t disagree that he did not choose to be gay. That doesn’t make the act ok. I can’t condone it, but at the same time I don’t support taking his rights or anyone else’s rights away. The state should protect the rights of everyone and that includes those who are gay. The situation in Uganda is immoral and completely against the teachings of Christ. Why don’t you get back to the topic and back up your accusations with something other than ad nauseam, appeals to ridicule and red herring arguments and simply prove your original accusation.

So you stand before Christ to be judged. Everything you have done is read back to you. Before you hear the decision, you say, "now remember. I didnt have a choice about being gay. You made me that way. So dont include that one in this decision." It says in the bible where God wants you to choose another direction if that is how you feel, not only about sexual matters but about all matters. What do you think He will say? I think you know the answer. But you dont want to believe that it is for real. You want to pretend that it wont happen, but that doesnt mean that it wont. Have a good one.

Clay,

I don't believe it is real. You pretend (because, despite the power of your faith, you CANNOT know) that what you describe will happen, but that doesn't mean it will.

By the way, you enjoying those pork chops?

Leviticus

11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.

11:8Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you.

Deuteronomy

14:8 and the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it [is] unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead caracass.

isaiah

65:3 A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;

65:4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable [things is in] their vessels;

66:16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.

66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one [tree] in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Gospel of Jesus

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[[Acts]]

10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Clay,

I don't mean to mock your faith. I do, though, hope you will come to understand that not everyone shares it. I also would like you to see the possibility that what you see as adamant and unchanging law has been, whether you like it or not, affected by cultural mores and political trends over the centuries (to say nothing of the vagaries of tanslation).

Which is why so many people grow impatient when scripture is cited as any kind of authority as to civil custom or law. Your scripture is irelevant to me, which is as it should be in our secular socity.

Thats what I thought. The old testament was replaced by Christ though. In your new testament passages above I dont agree that Christ is saying for people to be killed because they are gay. When He speaks of the law, is He referring to the old testament laws or the ones He lays down? I dont understand what you are saying about being able to eat pork. I dont have any problem with it. Current Jews still follow the old traditions and dont eat it because they dont have the new testament in their bibles. Thanks.

What I am saying is that the prohibition against pork seems to have survived into the NT ... but has been conveniently explained away by Christians because pork chops taste too good ... whereas same-sex attraction, love, and commitment is still condemned (despite not being explicitly prohibited in the NT) ... simply because Gay folk don't exist in sufficient numbers to make the rules (unlike pork-chop fans).

Just food for thought, Clay.

You're welcome.

Nothing has been conveniently explained away by Christians. You are quoting from Acts where God is telling Peter it is ok to eat pork as long as it hasnt been strangled, etc. God says it is ok in the new testament. And, it doesnt matter how many gay folk there are because God made the rules and He expects us to follow them. Gays in Sodom and Gomorrah greatly outnumbered the only few who werent gay and gays were obviously making the rules, but they were still destroyed. Now these former cities are where the Dead Sea is. There is still a pillar of salt there that looks like Lot's wife. Thanks.

Clay,

You very well know that a LOT of scriptural direction has been explained away. Slavery, the domination of women, and capital punishment for what we now see as either minor offenses or no offense at all ... all of these have been washed over because of more enlightened social custom. If you truly adhered to the teachings in scripture, you'd be in prison. Of course, if you truly adhered to the teachings of Jesus, you'd either be in prison or you'd be in a hospital for the insane (in any event, you wouldn't be able to afford a computer). All it takes for biblical "commandments" to be ignored (even by you, my friend) is for there to be sufficient powerful mortals to make it so.

Oh, and by the way, Wikipedia can provide you with many alternative readings of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. And not all of them from non-believers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_gomorrah

Nothing is never quite so open-and-shut as you want to believe.

The biggest way for old testament scripture to be washed away is by the love that Christ brings in the new testament. That is why He was sent here. When God tells me something I believe it to be open and shut and I dont question Him. That is why I have been blessed in my life. When I go to a bar and drink and pretend that sin is ok I am more likely to get punished. Perhaps it doesnt work that way with you. Remember, the worst thing that can happen to a Christian is when God stops talking to them. Thanks.

Clay - Those voices you are hearing in your head are more indicative that you need to increase your lithium dose rather than that some make-believe god is talking to you.

Bankstreet,
Open--shut that is Clay--the lord spoke to the man sometime ago and he has taken the hallucination literally--ditto for the Bible-only one interpretation stands--that is the lord's and Clay knows the lord's mind--it is all written in the bible--indubitable and unambiguous. Wikipedia my friend will get you nowhere--is that the same as the Bible? No? Then you dare ask Clay to go consult it in search of the truth? He is privy to the word of the lord--he has direct telepathic connection to the mind of the almighty being of the heavens and you ask him to consult the Wikepedia? O PLEASE!!!
Ravensfan Anon

My hope (admittedly probably futile) was that Clay would read the Wikipedia article and realize that scripture is open to interpretation. My second hope remains: that other readers of this blog will be made aware of the folly of Clay's blind acceptance of such a narrow reading of, in this case, a fable that does, indeed have value ... as long as one does not read it as historical fact and as long as one doesn't slavishly acknowledge only a single interpretation...probably one handed down from the pulpit of some ignorant preacher many years ago.

Bankstreet - You are partially correct some areas of scripture are open to interpretation. However, unless I missed it, I skimmed the wikapedia article rather quickly I didn't see mention of Romans 1 26:27. Within that section homosexuality is pretty clearly defined as sinful. I agree there are far too many people who take too narrow a view of scripture. There are as well people who try and distort it to justify actions as well. That doesn't just apply to homosexuality the Bible has been misquoted and misused for generations to try and justify all sorts of un-Christian behavior.

I will concede that scripture disapproving of homosexuality can be found. Believers are certainly free to do what they have to do to square these words with their inherent and perfectly natural inclinations, This will entail that they hurt those around them by their lies, go slowly mad ... or come to the realization that scripture was written (and translated) by men who embodied the fears and prejudices of their time. Believers are also perfectly free to be honest heterosexuals; that is, after all, the much easier path. That will give them a somewhat shorter list of offenses to deal with (pride, gluttony, and cruelty come to mind).

All of this parsing of scripture is irrelevant as we devise civil law, though. We are *not* a Christian Nation (never have been) and we are less and less a Nation of Christians. As much as I enjoy bantering about the hazards of trying to toe to close a line to very fluid words in a very old book, I am, as you know, not a believer myself ... and resent very much any attempt to codify religious law into my civil and secular life.

This is the much larger question. isn't it?

Oh, and ravensfan -- the Wikipedia article I cited speaks only to interpretations of the Sodom and Gomorrah myth -- not of sanctions against homosexuality in general. You might find the following useful, though:

http://www.dignitycanada.org/sin.html

BankStreet - You on the larger question facing the nation. I completely agree that biblical scripture is irrelevant in the romulation of civil law. We are not a Christian nation and you are also correct that we are probably even less a nation of Christians. You already know my views on the issue from our previous exchanges. I haven't had a chance to look at your newest link yet, but I will later on.