There's a particularly annoying position that's starting to rear its ugly head with respect to neo-Nazi Jessica Beaumont and her public position that gays deserve to be killed when she explicitly quotes Leviticus 20:13:
If a man lies with man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Take it away, Adam C:
their blood will be on their own heads.
I didn't miss this bit, but it is a quotation; it's not her own words.
Now, perhaps I'm reading Adam incorrectly, but it seems that he's suggesting that you can't accuse Beaumont of preaching hate since she's not personally taking that position, it's the Bible that's taking that position, and Beaumont is simply quoting it approvingly, which isn't the same thing, so Beaumont gets a pass.
In a word, fuck that.
This is the same kind of sleazy evasion that Christians have been using for years, to not have to take responsibility for their bigotry and racism: "Hey, I have nothing against Negroes, but it's the Bible that tells me that they're mud people and inferior. I'm just following Scripture."
Quite simply, the above is nothing more than moral cowardice -- people who want to promote offensive beliefs but don't have the guts to admit that they believe them personally, so they pawn it all off on a reading of Scripture, which allows them to behave as if their hands are still clean. And it doesn't end there.
The same kind of rhetorical douchebaggery can be found in the Wankersphere when someone finds an online article promoting "X", links to said article promoting "X", effusively praises article promoting "X", encourages readers to go read article promoting "X", but when article promoting "X" is exposed as utter rubbish, the aforementioned wanker disavows any responsibility for it, saying, "Hey, I never said 'X', I just linked to 'X', don't blame me!"
It's the kind of rhetorical douchebaggery that you can find, say, here, where The Politic's Aaron "Spanky" Unruh is all over the claim that "gay marriage is hazardous to your health," where Spanky reproduces that ridiculous claim, and also links to the article in question.
But after your humble scribe (uh, that would be me) took Spanky outside and kicked him around the back 40 for a few hours, you'll notice Spanky's furious backpedaling and disavowal of any responsibility:
But here’s the deal. I provide the link, you go read if you like, “refute” whatever you like, and leave me alone. How hard is this? And if you don’t like the articles I link, then treat the presence of my name at the top of posts as a warning: “Oops, my feelings are about to be hurt, had better not read.”
Yes, there's a profile in courage and integrity, that Spanky. He'll link to it, he'll promote it, he'll enourage his readers to read it, but he sure as fuck won't take responsibility for it if it turns out to be nothing but putrid, pseudo-scientific bigotry from beginning to end.
And that's what you find with neo-Nazi Christians like Beaumont and her supporters: "Hey, I'm not suggesting gays should be killed, I just want to make sure everyone reads this really, really, really cool passage from Leviticus, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I'm sayin'?"
Yes, Jessica, we know exactly what you're saying; we're just disappointed that you don't have the spine to take personal ownership of it but prefer to dump the blame all over the Old Testament. And if Adam wants to hang his argument on that kind of rhetorical hair-splitting, I think he's in for a rough ride, debate-wise.
OH, DEAR ... yet another Blogging Tory who needs a session or two in remedial English:
However, provided she doesn’t advocate violence towards the people she hates (and she didn’t), ...
Because "They must be put to death" is apparently a metaphor or something.
One can only wonder how many other Blogging Tories are going to fling themselves under this particular bus. Perhaps we should be keeping a list.