Archive for the gay culture Category

Saving Souls With Threats of Death

Posted in Atheist, belief, Christianity, culture, enlightenment, faith, gay culture, history, politics, religion, sex taboos with tags , , , , , on October 30, 2013 by chouck017894

(Thoughts after attending a screening of a documentary concerning Uganda’s parliamentary consideration of an anti-homosexual bill which would mandate executing alleged “serial offenders.”)

All faith systems promote themselves by promising to lead their followers on the only approved pathway into an eternal Paradise. However, these faith systems can offer no testimonials from the beyond by their satisfied customers, no offer extended of money back if the product is found to be defective, no proof of their high rank as official spokesmen for the King of Heaven—except by their own public image diploma mills. There is next to nothing ever acknowledged by them regarding the great variety and diversity which is the working mechanism of the universe; their ego-gratifying concepts of the Maker does not incorporate the act of inclusion of that variety and diversity which the Maker openly prefers and has always displayed.

This assessment of common faith system sins is prompted by a recently released independent documentary “God Loves Uganda” (limited showing in West Los Angeles, California). The film covers the invasion, may we say, of missionaries from the USA to the African nation of Uganda. The faith system responsible for this sin of spiritual sabotage is the Kansas City-based so-called International House of Prayer, a Pentecostal Christian conglomerate specializing in stirring up hatred in the name of holiness. The missionaries, primarily in their early twenties, are filled with youthful zeal, if not genuine spiritual enlightenment.

The purpose of sending out these young missionaries to Uganda certainly is not in the name of godly tolerance; it is the deliberate misinterpretation of the interrelationship of all life in a selfish pursuit of self-aggrandizement. It is this inappropriate ego titillation, not spiritual enlightenment, which lures the inexperienced young into the army of spiritual misfits under the false claim of being “touched by grace.”

The youthful missionaries take to the street corners (of Kampala, Uganda for example), and there, dressed in dark suits and holding an open copy of holy word, they fervently preach with brainwashed zeal for the governmental murder of persons who are god-instilled with same-sex orientation. This hateful notion that a brutal God has to correct his own alleged mistakes by calling upon the predatory side of man is totally contradictory to the loudly declared assertions that the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator-God is a just and merciful God. The insanity of smothering all morality, ethics and conscience in a vacuum of hatred is made even more frightening by the fact that the Uganda parliament is actually being influenced by this gruesome manipulative propaganda that passes as spiritual shepherding!

There is the probability in their government’s willingness to deliberate over the call for murder of gay individuals is that the politicians are most likely blinded by fear–not especially of any alleged sins of same-sex attraction, but out of concern for the spreading epidemic of HIV, which the evangelicals improperly blamed upon the activities of gay persons. That passion for hatred, drawn from Old Testament savagery such as promoted in Leviticus, provides easy scapegoats for public sacrifice. Stirred into this brew of misinformation is the fact that these same religionists who call for murder of gays had earlier promoted abstinence as the means of deflecting youthful curiosity about sex. The holy hucksters from Kansas City had pontified that abstinence was preferable to God instead of safeguarding young minds through sexual education! Obviously the religionists encouragement of abstinence had not proven to be the holy answer to the HIV epidemic among the populace.

All of this senseless turmoil of cultivated hatred which the Kansas City evangelists trust upon Uganda is made even more hideous by the fact that the demagoguery of the brainwashed missionaries pays off in huge financial rewards for the home base. And these toxic seeds that the missionaries have spread across Uganda have also paid off handsomely in their sponsored mega-churches in that nation.

When will the world learn that the self-serving hypocrites who disguise themselves under holy garb have absolutely nothing to do with genuine spiritual enlightenment?

131 Comments »

Overpopulation and Nature’s Regulation

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, biological traits, culture, freethought, gay culture, humanity, life, lifestyle, nature, random, sex, sex taboos, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , , on October 26, 2011 by chouck017894

Early in the priest-written book of Genesis 1:28 it is stated, “And God blessed them (a male and female couple not yet named), and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over…every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”  By this instruction, sex is established as the means of re-creation (and recreation).  Few persons pause to ponder over the word “replenish,” which implies that there must have been previous similar circumstances.

In our world today, however, it is abundantly clear that man has more than adequately fulfilled that particular “replenish” guideline which the Lord allegedly demanded.  The human species has brutally subdued everything around him, and has been especially industrious in replenishing the Earth.  In fact, the world population today on this little  planet has nearly reached the seven billion mark!  In less than a century, from 1942 when the world population was a mere two billion, breeding has apparently become an obsession.  Despite the unprecedented population explosion, the looming disaster it invites is treated as a taboo subject for the news media.  That head-in-the-sand approach to rampant human “fruitfulness” could lead to ecological catastrophe for the entire world.

Once upon a time as the human species evolved, having  multiple children was valued as a resource for the parents in their declining years.  As man proceeded to assert his “dominion” over “…every living thing that moveth upon the earth,” some of the wiser ones formulated sciences and technologies that contributed toward healthier offspring and protection from diseases: this made heavy breeding unnecessary, even impractical, as a means of self-insurance.

However, leaders of most faith systems have always promoted the priest-composed instruction of subduing the Earth and stressing the replenishing of our species for the simple reason that it assured an increase in their followers.  But the alleged godly suggestion to “replenish” the Earth should never have been considered a license to indulge in extensive production of more than could be properly cared for.  The idea of “replenishing” the Earth for god was advantageous for priestly authority, and this is still utilized by faith merchants as “revealed” religious instruction.  Unfortunately dedication to this sense of limitless “replenishing” also led mankind to indulge in the assumption that to “subdue” meant that exploiting the planet was a divine  right of man, not the counsel to safeguard it.

The present world population is ecologically unsustainable for an extended period of time.  History has repeatedly shown that in periods when human population increased up to sevenfold there followed (god-sent?) disasters of unprecedented food shortages, escalating prices for essentials, etc., which were always followed by civil revolts and deadly riots—even cannibalism.  But still there are those today who willfully ignore history and loudly trumpet that god abhors the use of contraceptives, or that providing sexual information for the avoidance of disease and careless human reproduction is somehow against god’s will!  This irrationality is so pronounced even today that various national leaders have actually advocated childbirth bounties!  (Hitler, for example.)  Apparently the religiously obsessed do not think that god gave man a brain in the expectation that man would use it to assume responsibility for himself and for the world he was advised to “subdue.”

Ironically, even “lower” animals are far smarter than that.  In the wild, when territorial areas become threatened by diminishing supplies, the animals will intuitively limit their breeding.  That is god-installed rationality, which has apparently atrophied in man.  Nonetheless, Nature remains active and vigilant in providing animate life with subtle safeguards, and often Nature’s adjustments, which are indifferently provided, tend to horrify the ego-centered religionists.  Rather than allow human life to self-destruct through brainless over breeding, Nature seems on occasion to amend human DNA to avoid over breeding.  One such adjustment, it could be argued, may be the modification to same-sex attraction.  Indeed, same-sex attraction can be seen throughout all animate nature and has always been present in Nature.  To the horror of those egocentric religionists this indicates that such attraction could be a natural organic safeguard against runaway reproduction which would prove disastrous for all life on the planet.  The chromosome assembly in any species is the means to insure diversity of species characteristics, which also insures ecological balance and benefit.

The idea that same-sex attraction could possibly be a natural built-in precautionary measure taken within DNA sequence may seem farfetched at first thought, but there are some known factors to consider.  Research has shown that changes in a parent’s lifestyle or in the environment, even when only minor or temporary, which occur before or during the reproductive period can cause subtle, even visible changes in the next generation.  The increased emotional tension throughout the modern world certainly contributes to people’s lifestyles in ways that could feasibly alter human sexual magnetism.  That safeguard seems always to be present as a precautionary ingredient in the electromagnetic nature that shapes an animate life form.

Nature, the bearing principle of Creation, retains it own special safeguards.  The genes initiating a new entity are usually hidden from the enzymes by RNA interference, so that the information which the genes ordinarily contain is kept hidden from enzymes.  Subtle changes in DNA structure will occur when the RNA briefly ceases to maintain interference however, and this results in the disappearance of little chemical markers that lock the coil of DNA around  protein complexes of the gene.  The lost marker function opens access to the genes which are then made available to enzymes that can read the gene’s code and use them for protein production.  Only a minor alteration in the code therefore affect the development of the lifeforms which can allow for a rather rapid response to biological and/or environmental conditions when necessary.  If there is any “sin” in variations of sexual magnetism, it is in failing to honor Creation’s laws of diversity.

It has been noted in a previous post (Homosexuality and the Bible, December 2010) that there are only about six or seven brief inferences on same-sex attraction that can be cherry picked out of the entire collection of priest-written “holy word” as implying “sinfulness.”  In comparison there are well over three hundred disapproving verses on heterosexual indulgences to be found.  This suggests that to evaluate a degree of sin quality to someone’s inborn sexual nature is not a particularly rational motive to indulge in prejudice as a devotional practice to honor the Creator.

12 Comments »

Mass Distractions

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, culture, faith, gay culture, Government, history, life, politics, random, religion, secularism, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , , on March 1, 2011 by chouck017894

Every year just prior to the beginning of the new U.S. Supreme Court term, the ceremony known as the Red Mass is played out in Washington D.C. in the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle.  And naturally the Catholic Diocese sends out invitations to the President, Vice President, the Supreme Court justices, and any other dignitaries that the church hopes to influence.

The Red Mass, first conducted in the early 1950s, is so-called because the officiating clergy wear red vestments to conduct the mass.  In that early 1950s timeframe the Catholic bishops were frothing at the mouth over the Supreme Court which, in 1947, had ruled unanimously in support of the clear separation of church and state.  (The case was Everson v. Board of Education.)  In addition, in 1948, the Catholic bishops had waxed indignant over the Supreme Court ruling that struck down a religious instruction course being imposed in public schools in Champaign, Illinois.  That, the clergy huffed, was “…the shibboleth of doctrinaire secularism.”  So, to show their displeasure with the rulings, the clergy donned their red costumes to indulge in a pretense of divine insight. 

Of course the annual Red Mass event is now propagandized by the church hierarchy as simply a traditional religious observance.  The noble intention, they say, is to beseech God to guide the administration in dispensing justice for the nation.  How God is expected to guide the dignitaries in attendance is usually broadly implied in how the Red Mass “observance” is conducted. 

Back in October of 2010, for example, Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl practically slobbered a welcome greeting upon the Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts.  And the Associate Justices, Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas—all devoted Catholics, and all Republican nominated—were each publicly praised for attending.  These five men happen to be of one assertive faith system, and happen to hold five of the nine benches of the U.S. Supreme Court: hardly a representation of diversity in a government that is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  The attention lavished upon these five justices at that 2010 Red Mass contradicted the so-called “traditional religious observances” that they were claimed to be, for the affair was a brash attempt to inject their religious philosophy into government, laws and sectarian doctrine.

The pompous affair was simply religious business as usual, for this has been the routine since that 1950 red-costumed circus.  The Red Mass provides the bishops with a captured audience, which in the case of the present Catholic dominated Supreme Court make for the opportunity to cajole five of the nine justices toward the Catholic faith system’s position on various issues.

From that 1950s feigned respect for the higher Source, the bishops then began to lobby for government aid to parochial schools.  In other words, they wanted tax money taken from diverse people who did not subscribe to the Catholic faith system to be utilized to pay for teaching Catholic beliefs!  From there the “holy” representatives then launched into sermons which opposed government allowance for abortion.  And today this is only one of the oppressive and hateful demands that Religious Right zealots are attempting to impose upon the widely diverse people that make up our democratic nation. 

Considering the amazing diversity that is displayed throughout all Creation, it seems highly unlikely that the creative power responsible for it all would find any reason to force any particular man-invented faith system upon the rest of Creation. 

The Constitutional advice of church and state separation was born of divine insight.  Many of the Founding Fathers of our democratic form of government had traveled to Europe, studied the history of other nations, and noted how governments inevitably sank into oppressive exploitation of citizens when dominated by religious factions.  The understanding that the church and state must stand apart if all citizens are to remain free is the major difference upon which the United States of America rose to greatness.  Separation of church and state was never meant to dishonor a higher Source, nor did it advocate the separation of law from morality.  The higher concept expressed in the Constitution that every person shares an equal playing field in their mortal existence is not a moral principle that religious tyrants choose to understand.

  • Related post: U. S. Supreme Court Set Trap for Democracy, December 2010.

3 Comments »

Homosexuality and the Bible

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, gay culture, history, humanism, humanity, life, random, religion, sex, sex taboos, thoughts with tags , , , , , on December 12, 2010 by chouck017894

(After reading of an alarming rise in suicides among gay youths badgered by religious ignorance.  Add to this the stupidity of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in military service, as well as the insane attempt to insert legal sanction to murder homosexuals in Uganda.)

One of the things that those who are gorged with holy hatred continually indulge in is to take verses out of context from Bible stories to express disapproval of some circumstance of life that does not measure up to some cultivated judgment they use to gratify their egos.  The alleged “sin” of same-sex attraction is one of their orgiastic fantasies.  To inflame themselves in this pious pornographic flight of the imagined immorality they will, of course, drag out their dog-eared Bible and expound heatedly over three or four favorite inferences.  Totally ignored by the gay-bashers is that there are well over 300 disapproving verses to be found on heterosexual indulgences in comparison.  This raises the issue, which of these “sinners” should we be concentrating on? 

The first example is generally taken from chapter 18 of Genesis, which tells of when the omniscient god was depicted as impatient to obliterate Sodom and Gomorrah.  In that tale we read that two angels who had shape-shifted into human male form are asked by the men of the village of Sodom  to  come out of Lot’s house so the men of the village might know them.  The phrase to “know them” has been deliberately twisted into a sexual connotation, such as the scriptural phrase so-and-so knew his wife.  This twisted concept is seemingly supported in chapter 19:8 for Lot, the story goes, then offered his two virgin daughters to them so the girls might clarify why privacy was necessary for the two visitors, for they bore vital information that concerned only the immediate family.  Remember, the early books of the Bible were not collected into written form until around the seventh century BCE, and sexual interpretation of “to know” can be traced back to a Jewish Midrash designed to inject reprehensible imagery into an otherwise  humdrum address.  That inference was not in the older Hebrew telling.  But invoking a forbidden suggestive image was more attention-grabbing for those who wanted to wrap themselves in an illusion of righteousness.  Careful there: another implication can be drawn from the story—one that alarms the self-righteous fundamentalists—and that implication is that if men are to be rescued from same-sex familiarity, God endorses the giving of virgin daughters for men’s sexual use as a gang-bang distraction technique.

Quickly skipping away from such an unnoticed Genesis inference, those determined upon holy hatred then dive into the book of Leviticus, one of the most hateful and discriminatory compositions ever passed off as “holy writ.”  In the sickness of spirit indulged in that book, which was mandated by priests to priests, it is asserted that it is a sin to eat pork, for example, or to eat water creatures without fins or scales; and leprosy was to be regarded as “unclean,” and that such a skin condition is caused by sin; parents could slay unruly children; and there are presented 28 ways approved to kill victims for any conduct that the priest-author alleged that God found reprehensible.  One has to wonder how the priest-author was privy to all the many “abominations” to which the Lord allegedly expressed aversion.  Surely it couldn’t be priest invented “abomination” because no offspring would be produced for the priests to brainwash?

As for God’s supposed disapproval of same-sex involvement, it is expressed in only one short verse in chapter 18 of the hate filled Leviticus.  The nine words of verse 22 says only, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind…”  If this is such an “abomination” to the Lord, isn’t it peculiar that this commandment expressed in Leviticus was not set forth in the Ten Commandments that were allegedly handed down to Moses?  Or did the omniscient one not foresee such probabilities that could arise from splitting a hermaphrodite into two sexes?  (Genesis 1:27, or especially Genesis 2:21-23)

Finding only such skimpy ammunition for practicing hateful judgment in the Old Testament the fundamentalists will swoop upon the New Testament in their cherry-picking endeavor, landing upon 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which is alleged to have been written by the self-proclaimed apostle Paul.  Among the sins that allegedly keep one from attaining membership in Heaven’s country club, there is listed in two verses: 9) “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, 10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Vague condemnation, indeed, if “effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind” are to be made to define what constitutes the “sin” of same-sex attraction!  Those characteristics and every other one in Paul’s list can be used to define nearly all fundamentalists.  Most are fornicators; worshiping the man-composed Bible amounts to idolatry; divorced person remarrying are adulterers (according to Luke 16:18); thievery includes using other people’s tax money for private religious indulgence; covetousness includes wanting to impose their demands upon other people’s lives; drinking heavily is far from rare among fundamentalists; reviling others (such as gays) is a religious addict’s standard practice; and extortion or seeking to obtain their way under duress is always the stock-in-trade practice of the religious right.

In desperation the fundamentalists will fall back and cherry-pick the book of Romans, plucking out chapter 1, verses 26 and especially 27 for attack purposes.   Ignored is the fact that the lines carry no authority when compared with the early teachings attributed to Jesus’ ministry.  As with 1 Corinthians, the book of Romans is attributed to the self-appointed apostle Paul.  Again the list covers an abundance of “sins” that seem to apply more to the fundamentalists themselves than does the single vague verse they use to vilify homosexuals.  Indeed, from verse 21 to the last verse, 32, the fundamentalists stand guilty of all the far darker sins.  To them the  first verse of chapter two which follows seems especially applicable: “Therefor 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.”

To that truth let us add,  Amen.

Related posts:

  •   Sex Attraction, A Bogus Spiritual Dilemma, Oct. 2009
  •   Victimizing Gays is to Mock Jesus, Oct. 2009
  • * God Didn’t Mention Chromosomes, May 2010 *

6 Comments »

God Didn’t Mention Chromosomes

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, gay culture, humanity, life, random, religion, science, sex, sex taboos, thoughts, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on May 3, 2010 by chouck017894

Love is the alleged message of Christian  faith—but the “holy” twist that pulpit charlatans put upon that message is only if that love is breeder-friendly.  The bewilderment of why god would discriminate against any commitment of love was brought back into question by an elderly Asian man who was soliciting signatures and donations at a market entrance for the drive to reestablish California state’s earlier approval of gay marriages. 1   As a father of a son and daughter, both hetero, his prime concern was over the calloused inequality practiced in the name of spiritual truth—a sense of inequality that had been imposed upon California voters by the Utah-based Mormon church’s intrusion into other peoples’ affairs through a devious $42 million ad campaign.  Interest in other people’s sexual attraction—which is nothing more than voyeurism and autoeroticism—should not be mistaken as a launch pad into God’s good graces. 

Previous posts here, such as Sex in Sacred Disguise (March 2009), pondered over how sexual allusions are intertwined throughout the whole framework of Judeo-Christian religious literature.  Words such as sacrament, testament, and seminary, we have seen, are directly traceable to sexual implication. 2  But despite such sexual allusions, the old priests and “prophets” who fathered these cults knew precious little regarding the holy secrets that set life in motion—those active principles which approve and insure the great diversity in life expressions.  That non-revealed process of life’s means composition proved blissful for the cult founders, for it allowed them the freedom to practice all forms of sexual intolerance.

Those much revered priest-mythmakers, for example, had not been informed by God about  how chromosomes and the chemistry of the brain determine the development of a person’s physical and sexual makeup. Unfortunately, even today the blindly faithful choose to accept principles set down long ago by those unenlightened men and completely ignore what science research has revealed concerning human development.  For example, the effects of sex chromosomes and the chemical sex hormones do NOT have an undeviating  manner of lining up according to one’s general anatomical features as religious prejudices have taught us to believe. 

Furthermore, anatomists know that there are considerable variations in the human brain—its shape, thalamus, structure of the cerebrum, etc.—that are extremely variable and are as individual as one’s fingerprints.  This means that mental and/or sensory properties connected within the brain structure may align within vastly diverse ranges, and no two persons will ever be exactly the same.  Obviously individuals are not meant to be identical in their life expressions.  So, as far as religious approval of human sexual expression goes, one size does not fit all.

Within these God-allowable differences there is left open the allowance for every diverse expression of life and love.  The chromosomes are what chemically controls the total development of the body, brain and intelligence.  These do so in a vast range of ways throughout each person’s lifetime.  Therefore, for political or religious faction to pretend that the “Creator” expects only one narrow expression of life or love to be striven for by all individuals is to be appallingly self-indulgent.  Even worse, such an unyielding attitude amounts to sacrilege. 

Hard-line, ego-driven religionists refuse to even consider the holy code used in production of all  life forms—the code of chromosomal and chemical “design” that decrees that there must be great diversity in human physical, mental and emotional expression.  Only in great diversity of life can the omniscient creative power be fully served.  This seems to be problematic only for those who choose to work themselves into histrionics over the fact that all life expressions mirror the power that gives forth all life.

Perhaps the great body of self-indulgence that is religion would do well to remember what science has also shown: The brain needs considerable amount of body to function in muscular circumstances, but very little brain is necessary for the body to corrode into corruption.

  • 1  Related post: Victimizing Gays is to Mock Jesus, October 2009
  • 2  Related post: Dressed for Sex, September 2009

1 Comment »

Obsessing Over Other Peoples’ Sex Interests

Posted in Atheist, Christianity, culture, faith, gay culture, Government, history, humanity, life, politics, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , on February 20, 2010 by chouck017894

Why would Christian “pastors” from America—such as Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundridge and Don Schmiere—have felt “called by god” in March 2009 to fly off to the African nation of Uganda to stir up harsh hatred against some peoples’ sex attraction?  The obsession of these guys on the matter of “curing” homosexuality has nothing to do with spiritual integrity.  No one concentrates on anything that does not stimulate them in some matter, so their “god-inspired” purpose to go to Uganda to advise on matter of homosexual attraction makes for very queer missionary work.

To begin with, Uganda is not especially noted for its advanced humanitarianism, and add to this the history of religious missionary intrusions almost everywhere show that the “work” has been accompanied far too often by aggravating any misery rather than alleviating it.  Provoking and contributing to hostility is not the ticket to heaven, but the aforementioned pastors were eager to work with the Ugandan “faith” leaders to “help stop the homosexualization of the nation.”   The inference would be funny if it were not so tragically absurd.  But Pastor Lively said in an interview with Alan Colmes that he, Lively, had been invited to Uganda because, he alleged, the Ugandan politicians were concerned that American and European gays were trying to export homosexuality to their paradisiacal country. 

Such an opportunity could not be ignored: the Ugandan nation already had harsh penalties for persons who were biologically wired with same-sex attraction so it was a matter of making hay where the sun was shining.  By October 2009 in Uganda a new bill was proposed by David Bahati, a core member of The Family and organizer of the Uganda National Prayer Breakfast, allowing the government to execute HIV-positive men.  Bahati was convinced this extreme and hateful indulgence was the best manner to serve god.  The visiting and obliging fundamentalist pastors simply helped stoke the fire. 

Back in the United States, there was a flare of indignation among politicians and some religious bigwigs.  President Obama was officially appalled, saying at The Family sponsored National Prayer Breakfast that such proposed legislation to execute HIV-positive persons was “odious.”  Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, dared to denounce it at the same Prayer Breakfast.  By Christmas time 2009 even good old evangelical super-pastor Rick Warren sent out a video to Ugandan pastors denouncing the proposed legislation as “extreme,” “unjust,” and “un-Christian.”  Unfortunately, Warren’s spiel wasn’t so much inspired by any genuine concern over the treatment of gays, but at accusations that he had helped sponsor the bill.  Perhaps the accusations were triggered out of a misunderstanding–Warren’s Saddleback mega-Church in Lake Forest, California (affiliated with Southern Baptist convention)  had hosted a Ugandan pastor who did indeed support the proposed genocide legislation.

It is always rather interesting to watch religious leaders squirm around things to protect their self-made holy image.  Not to malign Warren as example, but he was quick to declare his neutrality in commenting on what he called a “political process.”  In a Newsweek interview Warren declared, “The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts from God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.”

But is sidestepping the issue of promoting genocide to be so easily excused?  Is that just a political issue?  Is that avoidance the procedure we are to accept as moral leadership?  Is the “I never take sides” statement by Warren in a “Meet the Press” interview the example of Christianity’s high intellectualism? 

Funny, isn’t it, how hate and intolerance and ignorance can be excused with religious loftiness.

Leave a comment »