> I'm not going to use the word all here, because there probably is some > fundamentalist in this world who takes all of the bible to heart including > wearing non-blended fabric (amish?). But just because a person has some > guiding principle, it doesn't mean they have to be bound to every single > tenet that is laid before them. And I'm showing my ignorance here, maybe > homosexuality is the only item in Leviticus** that she follows (but I > seriously doubt that's they way it is, or was). I just feel the writers of > the show were grandstanding about something they felt wasn't getting enough > coverage. >
If you are going to claim that your reason for opposing something comes from a particular religious text, but you're going to ignore other things from that text, then how can you object when someone else ignores the thing you are opposing while opposing something else from that text? If you can selectively quote the Bible, why can't they? Where is the "principle" in that? Aren't you just finding some religious text to support a prejudice you have already settled upon? I.e., homosexuality is bad - oh wait! Look, here in the Bible - it also says homosexuality is bad! See? See? A sincere religious belief is one thing. But many people who quote the Bible to oppose homosexuality ignore other things the Bible rejects even more strongly than it does homosexuality. (Since the prohibition on mixing linen and wool comes from Leviticus, the "fundamentalists" observing it are Orthodox and some Conservative Jews, not the Amish, who probably could not care less.) Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
