« Tid Bits (long ones) - March 20 | Main | Fun With Data »

March 21, 2007



I think the tide is going to turn quickly in the gay marriage debate. As a consequence, all these proclamations from folks like Dungy are going to look pretty silly/scary in about 25 years (hopefully less).


"The bible prohibits many things, including: charging interest, dishonoring parents (penalty: death), having sex with a woman during menstruation (penalty: death), adultery (penalty: death) and allows other things (like slavery) that we find abhorrent and unacceptable. How it is that gay marriage has been raised to the position of the practice most needing condemnation and legal prohibition is unclear, because nowhere does the bible rank order condemned practices ..."

Classic intellectual dishonesty. First off, where is Tony Dungy suggesting that we use the Bible as the basis of our public policy? The Bible itself does not command us to do so, indeed quite the opposite. All Dungy is doing is taking a stand on a public policy issue, which last time I checked, we are allowed to do in a democracy. If we are no longer a democracy, and people are only allowed to publicly state certain stands on certain or all issues, then you would have to let me know when that changed. By the way, if we aren't supposed to use the Bible in contemporary public policy debates what are we supposed to use? Of course, something that would cause just as many problems, if not more. That is, unless we are only allowed to use things which support the "correct" beliefs, and no opposing views are allowed. Boy, that would solve all of our problems, wouldn't it? You are right, fascism is MUCH BETTER than democracy, where a free exchange of ideas within the context of a civil debate is encouraged without character assassinations, demagogic references to slavery (which incidentally could get you charged with being - gasp! - a racist for playing that card against a black person), and mischaracterizing one's religious views. Since you decided to go play the black card, are you going to tell Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and similar that they should leave their Bibles at home when they participate in all of those gay pride marches, and stay out of politics altogether? Should we stop having the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. federal holiday? That exposes the hypocrisy: people with certain beliefs only want to throw out the Bible when people use it to oppose their beliefs.

And lastly, to address your foolish argument that since Christians do not stone their disobedient children, they should just discard everything in the whole book (which, by the way, would also include all of the references to peace, justice, forgiveness, help for the poor, etc.). Now I am going to presume that you are a person who A) is actually familiar with the Bible and B) whose intelligence is at least two standard deviations below the normal range or higher, and therefore rather than being lacking in information or the capacity to comprehend it, you willfully made the premeditated decision to be dishonest. But for the sake of benefit of the many people who either have never read the Bible or did not understand it when they did, let me say that the rules which you were referring to applied only to the nation and the people of Israel during the time before Jesus Christ's death. They were never binding to Christians or anyone else. IN MANY PLACES the New Testament SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS not only Gentile Christians but also Jewish Christians from following the Old Testament rules. The Old Testament rules were given for the purpose of separating Israel from all of the other nations and peoples on the planet as being God's people, so that when Jesus Christ was born an Israeli Jew, there would be no way for another religion to credibly claim Jesus Christ for their own. And it worked. That is why the only way that Mormons and Muslims can stake their claim to Jesus Christ is by claiming to be "the lost tribes of Israel" or "the true chosen people." But after Jesus Christ came and died, the Old Testament rules were no longer binding. The New Testament rules, however, were, and the New Testament specifically condemns homosexuality as sinful.

So, anyone who has read Romans and says that if you are not still stoning people for adultery then you cannot claim to believe that homosexuality is a sin either lacks the capacity to comprehend or is willfully saying something that they know to be false. It is my honest opinion that you have read Romans (or Corinthians or any other of the many places in the New Testament where the words and/or principle of "dead to the law" is clearly expressed and explained in excruciating unambiguous detail) and chose to deceive people. Well, we all make our choices in life for our own reasons, and I sincerely hope that you are able to freely admit and live with yours.

old school

Why is it that the gay community can speak their minds openly and it is inferred that all should agree with the "choice" of such a lifestyle, yet when someone, whether it be Tony Dungy or others, state a point of view or "choice" then it is at its simplist "gay bashing" and "hateful"?

So all comments are okay as long as they concur with the stated philosophy of that given organization?

In 25 years it won't matter...either way....at the rate our society is going where there is little if any accountability or consequences for actions against the norm or laws we will self-implode! It has already begun in our schools through helicopter parents and the lack of learning through failure! There will be failure....guaranteed....may not be till kids are 30 and some parents dead but there will be failure and it will change our society as we know it today drastically!

Let the sun shine in!



Looks like sportsmediareview got linked by somebody...

I suspected that you'd be accused of trampling over Dungy's right to free speech (even though you didn't). But, I didn't foresee the claims of fascism. And I'm not sure where the rant about "playing the race card" was going, but I didn't see that one coming either.

And I'll admit that I was wrong in my first post that these types of proclamations from folks like Dungy would look silly/scary in 25 years.

They look silly/scary today.

The comments to this entry are closed.