Would Billy Graham Encourage You To Vote For Slavery?**

**Could you imagine the poster below? (Full disclaimer: I, Robert R. Cargill, marked-up the ad below to illustrate my point. I changed “marriage” to “slavery.” The ad is REAL, the red additions and the “Could you Imagine” text at the top are my own addition.)

VOTE FOR SLAVERY! (A marked-up Billy Graham marriage ad).

VOTE FOR SLAVERY! (A marked-up Billy Graham marriage ad).

The argument in Dr. Billy Graham’s newspaper ad above is based upon the biblical definition of a social practice articulated approximately 2000 years ago. I’ve switched ONE WORD to show the sheer absurdity of the argument toward another biblical definition of a social practice articulated approximately 2000 years ago.

No one would ever believe an elderly white preacher from the south would advocate for SLAVERY from the pulpit, would they?? Then why should we think any differently if that same preacher argues for a different 2000-year old biblical social definition, and an amendment to a modern state’s constitution banning gay marriage?

It’s the same argument, only with this generation’s civil rights issue.

Reject “Sharia Christianity.” Don’t let a 2000-year old religious book’s definition of social contracts like slavery, divorce, and marriage dictate modern law.


For more by Dr. Cargill on this subject, see:

It’s OK for Christians to Vote No on Prop 8

Full Text of Dr. Cargill’s Remarks at the Pepperdine GSEP Panel Discussion on Racism and Homophobia

A Note to Christians Opposing Gay Marriage: Get Over It

The Day After: Thoughts on the Response to the Overturn of Prop 8

i am very, very proud of the fact i am moving to iowa

Well Done: Iowa’s Zach Wahls Featured on the Daily Show about Being a Child Raised by Gay Parents

See also:

“michigan republican anti-bullying law provides exception for religious bullying

a study in masculinity: comparing michael irvin and mark driscoll

absolutely sickening homophobia from the pulpit

See also the classic West Wing segment on YouTube.

Well Done: Iowa’s Zach Wahls Featured on the Daily Show about Being a Child Raised by Gay Parents

Iowa's Zach Wahls appears on THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART.

Iowa’s Zach Wahls appears on THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART.

Very proud to be an Iowan and of Zach Wahls, who was interviewed as a guest on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Wahls discussed his new book, My Two Moms, and how the 12 rules of the Boy Scouts were exemplified by his parents in raising him.

The video of the Daily Show interview is here.

His original speech to the Iowa House Judiciary Committee in opposition to a proposed amendment to ban gay marriage is below.

absolutely sickening homophobia from the pulpit

Here’s this week’s reason why Americans need to take a good, hard look at the bigoted venom that is being spewed forth from many of our houses of worship.

Neal Broverman shares with us this story of Sean Harris, the senior pastor at Berean Baptist Church in Fayatsville, NC.

This is absolutely sickening. I guess it’s not just Mark Driscoll in the great northwest that is preaching this homophobic nonsense, but now it’s of Berean Baptist Church in Fayatsville, who argues that parents should hit little boys (“crack that wrist” and “give him a good punch”) for showing the “limp wrist,” and “reign in” daughters who are “acting too butch.”

Then, listen as the pastor clarifies his story, stating that he in no way meant that parents should physically harm their children, but reiterates his hatred of homosexuality.

Did you catch the end of the news piece? The pastor got some “nasty,” even “threatening” phone calls and emails?? I’m certain they weren’t literally intending any harm. It was probably just “hyperbole.”

Question: at what point can we conclude that advocating violence against children – for whatever reason, but especially for reasons of bigotry – from a Christian pulpit is ABSOLUTELY NO different than when militant preachers of other religious traditions advocate violence from the pulpit?? Can we condemn one and not the other? And can we go ahead and admit that inciting violence in the name of God is reprehensible and unworthy of the protections commonly afforded religious institutions?

article: fundamentalism, biblical interpretation, feminism, and gay rights at bible and interpretation

David A.J. Richards

David A.J. Richards, the Edwin D. Webb Professor of Law at New York University School of Law

There is an article at Bible and Interpretation entitled, “Against Fundamentalism in Christian Bible Interpretation: The Biblical Case for Feminism and Gay Rights,” that is worth a read. David A. J. Richards, the Edwin D. Webb Professor of Law at New York University argues:

What is astonishing about all the forms of American fundamentalism—new natural law, Protestant fundamentalism, and Mormonism—is that their hostility to feminism and gay rights rests on a reading of ostensibly Christian texts that pays little or no attention to the life and teaching of the historical Jesus.

The article concludes:

What they fail to see is how the alternative anti-patriarchal reading of Christianity I propose clarifies what Jesus thought were the difficulties for us of an ethics of love under patriarchy and why he expressed these difficulties through the command to love even our enemies under the terms of a patriarchal culture that made such love unspeakable, indeed unnatural. The familiar King James version translation of Matt. 5:48 is: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Bible, Matt., 1998, 8). Jesus models our love for one another (including loving even our enemies) on God’s love for us, as relationally responsive and responsible persons and as equals. If so, the deepest impulses within Christianity call for a love only possible for us as equals in responsible relationship, the basis for what is distinctive in contemporary feminism and gay/lesbian rights.

Give it a read.

i am very, very proud of the fact i am moving to iowa

…and here is one more reason why. Listen to Zach Wahls speak to the Iowa House of Representatives during a discussion about House Joint Resolution 6, which seeks ban same-sex marriage in Iowa. The presentation excellent and his argument is sound.

And I shall continue doing my part (here and here and here and here and here and here and here) to combat the discriminatory hatred that continues to be spewed forth by those so-called ‘Christians’ who seek to impose their selectively hypocritical self-righteousness upon others, like this unnamed fundamentalist:

(I love how the opponent is too cowardly to even give his own name, and how those in attendance start walking out.)

Some use religion to condemn and marginalize, others to serve and heal. You tell me which of the above acted like a real ‘neighbor’?

HT: Scott Bailey

fake study: men who stare at breasts live longer, healthier

Fox News reports German "Staring at Breasts" Study

Really? German study says "staring at breasts" increases men's health.

According to an old fake German study making the rounds again, the healthiest men are those who stare at a woman’s breasts for at least ten minutes a day. And myFox Boston fell for it, and even provided video:

Five-hundred men participated in the German study. Half were told to refrain from looking at breasts for five years, the other half were told to ogle them daily.

The study claimed that men who stared at breasts more often showed lower rates of heart problems, a lower resting heart rate and lower blood pressure.

The authors of the study recommend that men stare at breasts for 10 minutes a day.

Really? REALLY? There is some German study that gives men an “excuse” to ogle women (like they need one)?

The purported author of the study, gerontologist Dr. Karen Weatherby (yes, a woman to make the story more believable), supposedly argues that gawking at women’s breasts is a healthy practice, equivalent to an intense exercise regime.

She added, “Just 10 minutes of staring at the charms of a well-endowed female, is roughly equivalent to a 30-minute aerobics work-out.”

Seriously? Staring at a woman’s breasts for 10 minutes is the equivalent of a 30 minute workout???!!! This simply cannot be true. How do I know? If staring at women’s breasts for 10 minutes was the equivalent of a 30-minute workout, bibliobloggers would be the most physically fit people on earth. And this is simply not the case. And I know – I’ve seen them all together in a room together.

I shake my head. In fact, I have a few questions that arise from a “scientific study” like this one:

  • How does one muster enough nerve to propose a study like this?
  • Who actually funded this study, the porn industry?
  • Is the decreased heart rate due to the process of looking at the breasts, or some correlated physical activity that may immediately follow the ogling?
  • Who volunteered to be in this study? (And how did they react when they were told they’d be in the control group?)
  • How do women decrease their resting heart rate?

Seriously, I can hear it now: “Honey, I have to. Doctor’s orders.”

HT: RC

Update: This appears to be a recurring hoax, which MyFoxBoston fell for.

california court rightfully strikes down the bad law that was prop 8

No on Prop 8he struck it down. may it rest in peace (although we know there’s no chance of that).

the la times is reporting:

A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

cnn has the story here. yahoo is here.

kudos to chief u.s. district judge vaughn walker for doing the right thing. of course, this will be appealed to the u.s. 9th circuit court of appeals (good luck there ;-) and then on to the u.s. supreme court. at that point, the supreme court may take up the case and rule (which is what everyone wants, but will spell certain disaster for one political group – hint: believe it or not, it’s the group that wins), or the court may choose not to rule on a state’s matter.

of course, we will not stop hearing the mantra of how an ‘activist court’ ‘disregarded the will of the people’ and ‘legislated from the bench.’ we’re going to hear that until we’re sick of it. of course, we didn’t hear that from conservatives when the supreme court overturned gun bans in dc and chicago, but i digress. (remember: when we read ‘legislating from the bench,’ we should actually read ‘legislating form the bench against my point of view.’) i wonder how long it will take for prop 8 supporters to cry foul and complain about the fact that the judge was himself gay?

sometimes, or very rare occasions, certain groups (mostly religious groups) rally within a state (and sometimes from outside a state’s borders) to bypass the elected representative legislature (via direct ballot initiative) and fund, support, rally behind, and pass a bad, discriminatory law. that’s what some people in california (and utah) did with prop 8, the initiative to ban gay marriage in california.

the court reached the correct decision today. the pro-prop 8’ers intentionally bypassed the legislature to pass a bad law. the court rightfully overturned it.

page 135 of the judge’s ruling concludes:

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite- sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

the comment from the remedies on p. 136 is also worthy of note:

“California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.”

that is to say, they knew it was unconstitutional, and any lawmaker that supports prop 8 outside of an über-conservative district is finished. prop 8 supporters knew that playing on the fears and/or beliefs of the populace via direct ballot initiative was the only possible way to ram this initiative through into law. and now, that law is gone. (now, if we can only get rid of the ballot initiative process…)

now for the appeals.

i am wondering: the first time a gay marriage ban was placed on the california ballot (prop 22 of 2000), it passed with 61.4% of the vote. the second time (prop 8 of 2008) it passed with only 52.2% of the vote – a loss of over 9% in 8 years. i wonder when they put another gay marriage ban on the california ballot (and they most certainly will) if it will even pass? 2.2% more and it fails. given the current trends state-wide and nationally, the group that wants to discriminate against homosexuals is running out of bullets.

%d bloggers like this: