If you can stand yet another post on Nazi sympathizer and hate criminal Jessica Beaumont, there's some definite entertainment value in watching numerous members of
To refresh our collective memories, recall that Beaumont was fined for promoting a particular passage of Scripture, that being 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.
In short, Ms. Beaumont's offense was to publicly and explicitly promote the murder of homosexuals. Are we clear on that? Because you really need to understand that before we go on.
Now, let's watch how various members of the BT hive-mind choose to blare the news on their respective blogs, shall we? As before, we have putrid racist and Blogging Tory Kate McMillan:
"Five years in prison for quoting Scripture"
And, yes, Kate very carefully left out the context which would have put a considerably different spin on the story, didn't she? Although I'm guessing a headline like "Nazi sympathizer fined for promoting murder of gays" wouldn't have given her adoring, self-pitying groupies the little stiffies they're after. (Or maybe it would. That's kind of creepy, too.)
Depressingly, Kate is not alone in her spin, as we see when we pop in to visit Blogging Tory Canadian Sentinel:
Kangaroo Court: 5 Yrs Jail for Cdn Christian for Quoting Bible
A woman has been threatened with up to five years' imprisonment for quoting the Bible.
And once again, the critical context has been carefully excised. Are you starting to see a disturbing pattern here? But let's not stop now, as we drop by the blog of (you guessed it, Blogging Tory) The Way the Ball Bounces, where we read:
5 Years in Jail for Quoting the Bible?
A woman has been threatened with up to five years' imprisonment for quoting the Bible.
It's just depressing, isn't it, the blatant misrepresentation. But that's not the best part.
The obvious question is, why are they whitewashing the reality? And the answer is just as obvious -- because they know that what Beaumont did is indefensible. And let me hammer this point home.
If the Blogging Tories (or anyone else) want to defend Beaumont's actions and want to take the position that there's nothing illegal about what she did, then those same people should be honest enough to describe Beaumont's actions accurately and in detail. In short, if you support what she did, then have the cojones to tell people what she did. In detail.
Instead, we have the pathetic spectacle of Canada's shriekiest wingnuts, bravely announcing their support for poor Jessica, while curiously omitting any mention as to why she was actually punished. Don't you find that odd? It's almost as if they're ... embarrassed by it. And don't you find that at least a little amusing?
So come on, wingnuts -- if you're going to support Beaumont, at least have the integrity to explain what's actually happening here. Anything else is just plain wussy.
P.S. Note very carefully that nowhere in the above was it necessary for me to take a position on Beaumont's criminality or the applicability of hate speech laws, or anything even remotely legal. I am simply pointing out the cowardly dishonesty of a number of Blogging Tories who have chosen to take a public stand for Beaumont, while simultaneously (and chickenshittedly) avoiding any real discussion of what she did.
10 comments:
The other odd thing is that the Biblical stuff appeared in one post out of thirty in the complaint.
More at my place. If I may say so, great group effort here, even if the fruit this time is almost touching the ground.
Funny how the topic of gays always comes up when wingnuts defend their "religious freedom". Where is the promotion of such biblical morality as killing adulterers, back-talking children or the abomination of Gwen Landolt opening her big mouth in church?
btw, isn't it long past time that the old testament was put into the joke-dust-bin of history where it belongs?
Oh, bcw, don't worry -- Jesus came to "fulfill" the Old Testament so all those rigid rules don't apply any more.
Except when it's convenient for us to condemn someone. Then we haul out all those verses that suit our purpose, yelling, "Not one jot or tittle shall pass away, by god!"
I've never been able to figure out how people who believe the Bible is the ierrant word of God, reconcile themselves to the sort of nonsense propounded in tracts like Leviticus.
s/b inerrant
Whooee! The Bible's chuck full o' weird laws. Here's samplin' I found at http://www.liberator.net/articles/AdamsKen/BibleJustice.html
******************
The eating of fat is prohibited forever. (Lev 3:17)
You cannot round the corners of your beard or the hair on your temples. (Lev 19:27)
Witches should be killed. (Ex 22:18)
The congregation was to be a bastard free zone. The Bible was so dead set against bastards that their children, even to the tenth generation, could not enter the assembly of the Lord. (Duet 23:2)
This is in keeping with God's principle of punishing children for the wrongdoings of their parents.
Handicapped people could not approach God. Their presence would profane his sanctuary. (Lev 21:16-23) This scripture single-handedly offends almost every category of handicapped persons you can name. The blind, lame, injured, hunchbacks and dwarfs are specifically named. If anyone is left out, the catchall phrase "anyone with a blemish" is thrown in to cover them. I guess in Israel, the handicapped parking stalls were at the far end of the parking lot.
Entrance into the assembly of the Lord was granted only to those with complete testicles. (Duet 23:1) Now, I will admit that keeping one's testicles in tact is a pursuit worthy of some attention, but I have to ask: What went on in the "assembly of the Lord" that required a complete and full set of testicles? And, since testicles are usually not on display, was there someone at the gate assigned to check?
Anyone working on the Sabbath is to be killed. (Ex 35:2) This law was to protect the sanctity of Sunday afternoon football. Unfortunately, any player that touched the ball would have to be killed after the game, because he had touched a dead pig. (Lev 11:7,8) That would certainly make it easier to play defense.
Menstruating women and everything they touch are unclean. The only cure for this uncleanness was for the priest to kill a couple of pigeons. (Lev 15:19-30) What could be more logical?
If a couple has sex during the woman's period, the two are to be cut off from their people. (Lev 20:18) Once again, how would anyone know that this had happened? The couple is obviously not going to tell. Maybe the genital inspector from the temple made house calls.
Women were officially second class citizens. They were considered possessions that were owned, (Prov 12:4) and were officially subordinate (1 Cor 14:33,34).
Homosexual men were to be executed. (Lev 20:13) No mention is made of homosexual women.
If a woman grabs a man's privates during a fight, her hand is to be cut off. (Duet 25:11,12) Now, is it really necessary to have this law on the books? You get the impression that the person who was writing the laws had recently experienced this and was still a little pissed off.
False prophets are to be killed by their own parents. (Zech 13:3)
Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents. (Duet 21:18-21)
*********************
Things like slavery an' polygamy an' genocide were proclaimed OK, too.
JB
"And, since testicles are usually not on display, was there someone at the gate assigned to check? "
i'm not saying anything about St. Peter or how the gates got pearly...nuh uh.
Don't forget Leviticus put eating shellfish in the same class as homosexuality as an abomination. Eaten lobster? Might as well go suck some dick then - as far as Leviticus was concerned it was in the same category.
I wonder how all of KKKate's gay friends in the wacky world of dog-breeding/showing would think about her supporting somebody advocating for homosexuals to be murdered.
Post a Comment