Wednesday,September 3, 2003

Gays in church: In which testament are you basing your argument?

Eureka! After a little diligent searching, I found the biblical condemnation of homosexuality. If you check Leviticus 18:22 it reads: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." That same section of Leviticus has a lot of other good stuff about uncovering various people's nakedness, which is not referred to as an abomination, until they're all lumped together at the end as abominations, and you better not do them or else the land will spew you out.

Now funnily enough, if you go on a little into chapter 19 you run into your next abomination at 19:7. The preceding paragraphs have to do with making peace offerings which you should eat in the first two days. If you eat it on the third day: "It is abominable," which, of course, would make the act of doing so an abomination.

Now I used the King James version of the Bible, completely ignoring the Septuagint (the original Greek translation), and the Tora (where it all comes from) so I'm relying literally on a translation of a word. I don't read ancient Hebrew; however, if God condemns homosexuality at the same level as eating three-day-old goat, how bad could it be?

In that same chapter 19 we find some other curious commands. Don't go mating different breeds of cows. Don't go sowing different types of seed in the same field. Don't wear clothing made of mixed linen and wool (I presume polyester would be OK). And furthermore if you lie with a married woman who is a bondmaid, you're both kind of in trouble, but you won't be put to death because, well, by golly, she's a slave.

By the time I'd read all this, I had warmed to my subject and was eager for more ancient do nots. Instead I found some lovely dos. Check Leviticus 24:16. "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him..."

Here are a couple more good ones from Deuteronomy. In Deut. 13:8 we read: "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying. Let us go and serve other gods ... thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people."

Then there's Deut 17:2 through 5: "If there be found among you within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God in transgressing his covenant ... then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till thy die."

My blood had started to boil by the end of Deuteronomy. Here I was worrying about homosexuals, three-day-old food, condemning modern gardeners and the content of my clothing, when I should be out finding and stoning blasphemers. I did stay away from that Jesus stuff one book over: way too much love, way too much tolerance, way too little use for those comfortably established.

No siree, it's the Tora for me. Just pick a target and find your verse. After that you can find a New Testament phrase to voice your love, while holding dear your Old Testament to act on your prejudice.

But this epiphany led to another: we don't live in a theocracy. Our freedom, and form of government are not a natural outgrowth of the Bible. The Bible took its form sometime after the conveniently converted Constantine called the Christian leaders together on Nicosia in 325 a.d. to formalize Christian dogma. The intervening 1,462 years witnessed all manner of despotism and very little human respect.

A biblical theocracy was assembled by John Calvin in Geneva, and bathed in the blood of "blasphemers" and Anabaptists.

When the great men of America came together in 1787 to amend the Articles of Confederation, and ended up discarding them in favor of an untried Federal Republic, they chose to not mention religion or any of its manifestations. In 1791, at the command of the states, they included Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." What we do find in the debate, as recorded by Madison, is an overwhelming sense that individuals must be protected from the power of the state; that, yes, we must give up some rights to live in a society, but we reserve all those not specifically taken away, to the people.

So I'm not sure where the idea of biblical prohibitions comes into play in our law. Failing to keep the Sabbath is also a biblical no-no, but it's also nobody else's business. If some material or legal advantage accrues to the contract of marriage, how can we, under the 14th Amendment, deny two people the right to engage in that contract? This, of course is untested legal ground, but certainly food for thought.

The right wing is going through their usual knee-jerk reaction to any immediate offence, calling for a constitutional amendment to define marriage. While we're at it we ought to include the mandatory contents of the dry martini. As for whether God is a raging maniacal killer or a benevolent despot, I'm sure I'll find out someday. In the meantime the passions of religion are a poor mix with the necessity of reasoned governance.

Timothy J. Parker

Peachtree City