Learning From the Sin of Sodom

[mgc1961]

"For most of the last century, save-the-worlders were primarily Democrats and liberals. In contrast, many Republicans and religious conservatives denounced government aid programs, with Senator Jesse Helms calling them “money down a rat hole.”

Over the last decade, however, that divide has dissolved, in ways that many Americans haven’t noticed or appreciated. Evangelicals have become the new internationalists, pushing successfully for new American programs against AIDS and malaria, and doing superb work on issues from human trafficking in India to mass rape in Congo.

A pop quiz: What’s the largest U.S.-based international relief and development organization?"


Here's where the answer can be found http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em

[hobbit709]

1. The sin of Sodom was that the locals acted like Republicans

they failed to care for the widows and orphans.

[rurallib]

2. yep. Funny how that gets lost.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Kristof glosses over genocide as if it were a rhetorical device

But he at least notes the truth:" Some conservative Christians reinforced the worst view of themselves by inspiring Ugandan homophobes who backed a bill that would punish gays with life imprisonment or execution."

So execution and life in prison, Kristof calls 'sanctimony' as he equates it with 'snobbishness' against religious people. Really Nicky? A man wants to have me executed, and my objection to that is snobbish?
The religious need to understand that such things as go on in their name in Uganda do in fact go on in their name, and often with their involvement. When a people are wishing to have me killed, there is no response to that which is over the top or out of line. Not one secular or gay group has ever suggested that the religious should be executed or imprisoned. So to attempt to equate the two groups is disgusting.

[mgc1961]

4. Speaking of death sentences,

I've always been struck by how quickly the Bible literalists will abandon literalism when Leviticus is mentioned. No where in that popularly cited passage does the Bible mention sex. Here's the passage from the KJV:

And if a man shall lie with mankind,
as he lieth with a woman, both of
them have committed an abomina-
tion: they shall surely be put to death;
their blood shall be upon them.

As for the whole of Leviticus, that has to be the weirdest book in the Bible. It's full of Ye shalls and Ye shalt nots with the following housekeeping passage slipping way too comfortably into obsessive/compulsive:

And if a woman have an issue
and her issue in her flesh be blood,
she shall be put apart seven days: and
whosoever toucheth her shall be un-
clean until the even.

And any thing that she lieth
upon in her separation shall be un-
clean: everyth thing also that she sitteth
upon shall be unclean.

And whosoever toucheth her
bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe
himself in water, and be unclean until
the even.

And whosoever toucheth any
thing that she sat upon shall wash his
clothes, and bathe himself in water,
and be unclean until the even.

And if it be on her bed, or on
any thing whereon she sitteth, when
he toucheth it, he shall be unclean un-
til the even.

And if any man lie with her
at all, and her flowers be upon him,
he shall be unclean seven days; and
all the bed whereon he lieth shall be
unclean.

Felix Unger anyone? :)

[classysassy]

5. Knowledge and understanding

"get knowledge and with all your getting get understanding" There are to few people that take time to understand the Bible.