« The battle of the caucuses | Main | What the lack of a health exception means in real life »

What He Said

Leonard Pitts Edition:

Put simply, I've had it up to here with the moral hypocrisy and intellectual constipation of Bible literalists.

By which I mean people like you, who dress their homophobia up in Scripture, insisting with sanctimonious sincerity that it's not homophobia at all, but just a pious determination to live according to what the Bible says.

And never mind that the Bible also says it is "'disgraceful" for a woman to speak out in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-36) and that if she has any questions, she should wait till she gets home and ask her husband. Never mind that the Bible says the penalty for going to work on Sunday (Exodus 35:1-3) is death. Never mind that the Bible says the man who rapes a virgin should buy her from her father (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and marry her.

I'm going to speculate that you don't observe or support those commands. Which says to me that yours is a literalism of convenience, a literalism that is literal only so long as it allows you to condemn what you'd be condemning anyway and takes no skin off your personal backside.

As such, your claim that God sanctions your homophobia is the moral equivalent of Flip Wilson's old claim that the devil made him do it.

You resemble many of your and my co-religionists, whose faith so often expresses itself in an obsessive focus on one or two hot-button issues -- and seemingly nowhere else.

Comments

The OT examples of "biblical literalism" are examples of the law which Christians are supposed to have rejected.
Comments are up! Yea!

double_curve.gif

The only problem with Pitts' attempt at exegesis is that he fails to take the New Testament into account -- you know, all those places in Acts and the Epistles which talk about how most of the Jewish ritual law is inapplicable to those washed in the Blood of the Lamb. The prohibition of homosexual activity, though, is one of those moral laws explicitly held to be be retained.

You see, what you really have with Pitts' column is that, instead of exegesis, he is actually engaged in eisegesis -- an attempt to read his own beliefs into Scripture, rather than to draw out of Scripture that which is actually there.

double_curve.gif

Uhhh...Corinthians is in the New Testament. Nice try, though.

double_curve.gif

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://wampum.wabanaki.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2146

we're using {mt v4.x || wp v2.x || drupal v6.x}, {mysql v 5.x || postgresql v8.x}, perl v5.8.8, php v5.2.5, python2.5.2 and apache v2.x, all running on freebsd-releng_7, on one of four ixsystems, housed in the usawebhost colo space in portland maine. everything is minded by ebw. all work by mb williams and eric brunner-williams are © wampum.