According to Bill O’Reilly, pundits cannot appeal to the Bible any longer for public policy regarding homosexuals that want to get married. At least I think it’s just in regards to homosexual marriages. Hell, I don’t know when and where we can use the Scripture any longer. Can we still use it in church? Does anyone know?
Well for now, I think it’s just in regards to homosexuals who want to get hitched that we’re verboten to bring the Verbum Dei into the discussion.
Geez, it’s getting tough keeping up with what we can and can’t reference anymore, eh? I wish someone would keep me in the loop regarding whom and what I/we can source. Please email all politically correct changes to me at firstname.lastname@example.org. Gracias. Back to O’Reilly.
Yep, as of March 26th 2013, if you believe Bill, then going forward we cannot cite the colossal lawgiver Moses, the erudite Apostle Paul, the sage Solomon or even that know-it-all Jesus lest we be deemed a “Bible thumper”.
By the way, who thumps the Bible? Isn’t that rude? I thumped the crap out of this kid the other day who dropped the F-bomb on his mom, but I’ve never thumped the Bible. Anyway …
So, let me get this straight, even though Jesus Christ said marriage is solely a union between a man and a woman (Mat.19:4-6), according to Mr. O’Reilly, we can’t inject that stuff into the mix or we’ll be discounted as a Bible thumper? Incidentally, I don’t think Bible thumper was meant as a compliment. It sure didn’t sound like praise when he floated that term the other night. Matter of fact, it kind of sounded like he called those who do appeal to the Scripture as uneducated rubes.
But I might be reading too much into that expression because surely … he doesn’t think the vast majority of our nation’s founders and framers were hayseeds because, OMG, did they appeal to the Scripture for our nation’s political and societal glide path. If you don’t believe me click here.
Y’know, before I became a Christian in 1983, I knew diddlysquat about the Scripture. I never read it and never wanted to read it. And yet I noticed, via nature, mostly while hunting, without the aid of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, that for the propagation of species and the stabilization of the natural order, it seemed, at least to this redneck, that everything was stemming from males’ and females’ bumping uglies — verses male and male or female and female. Nature was screaming at me … male and female. Weird, eh? Can we reference nature any longer?
Yep, before I ever read the Bible or watched Cecile B. Demille’s famous flick, being completely in the dark regarding what the Bible had to say on the subject, what I noticed as a dippy kid was the fact that the penis and the vagina were made for each other; and that the anus was an exit and not an entrance; and anything to the contrary was atypical. Or queer. Ah … the good old days.
Lastly, after O’Reilly chastised those who make their appeal for policy based upon the wisdom of the ages, I wondered if there was, indeed, an argument that didn’t cite Jeremiah that might give credence for upholding the traditional definition of marriage as that which is between a man and woman; and I stumbled upon this nugget by Robin Phillips. Enjoy.
If homosexuals and heterosexuals are really “equal” before the law, then logically heterosexual marriage must collapse into being little more than a legal construct as well. Indeed, marriage and family become mere adjuncts of the state after the removal of the de facto conditions that make the traditional family a pre-political institution in the first place. No longer is family something that, in the words of Douglas Farrow, “precedes and exceeds the state.” No longer is the family a hedge against the totalitarian aspirations of the state because no longer is the family prior to the state.