I still think Robertson and Falwell are candidates for the "Other" Religion of Peace Award.
jesus gil | Homepage | 11.26.02 - 3:53 am | #

Hey Mark,

I know this has absolutely nothing to do with this entry, or anything on this page for that matter, but it is something deserving of good ol' Mark "Sheavings".

When homosexuality comes up in conversation, I almost always use the "against the natural law" argument; however, you wouldn't even believe what I've happened upon lately. Check this out.

http://www.stonewallinn.com/ Feat...BioExEssay.html

Now is it me, or is this disturbing? I'd love to hear what you think of it. It seems all too conveniently pro-gay, doesn't it? I didn't know whether to laugh or cry my way through that article, lol. Weird, weird, weird.

As to your post - I think Pat Robertson is annoying, but that's just my opinion. Ha!

Take care, and God bless!


Jennifer Benjamin | Homepage | 11.26.02 - 4:55 am | #

Re: the Nigerian beauty contest riots, here is a link to the newspaper "This Day's" apology for an editorial suggesting Mohammad may have sought a wife from the contestants:

http://allafrica.com/stories/ 200...0211220019.html

I'm afraid we're going to be seeing a lot more of such deference to angry Muslims, which seems closer to me to obsequiousness than courtesy. This is something to keep in mind when considering Cardinal Law's participation in the prayers of the Boston-area mosque.

Rick | 11.26.02 - 9:11 am | #

Latest update on the Nigerian incident: now the reporter who wrote that Mohammed might have married one of the beauty contestants may be executed:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ news...missworld_dc_65

I'm wondering how long it will be before more of us are "asked" to participate in Ramadan prayers, to follow all mentions of Mohammed with PBUH ("praise be upon him") and adopt other Islamic pieties as a demonstration of our tolerance?
Rick | 11.26.02 - 11:08 am | #

I have no special use for beauty pageants, and Falwell and Robertson seem to garble their message often (though the press likely amplifies and distorts them...). But this pageant's coverage was used as an excuse for Moslems to kill Christians and "suspected Christians"...and all we hear on TV is that it was "rioting" or "interreligious violence". What I personally am tempted to follow all mentions of Mohammed with at this point...is wholly uncharitable, I fear, and I think I'll go enjoy some Ramadan pork rinds. During daylight hours. Take that, you lousy Saracens (peace - enforced by superior firepower - be upon your sorry heads).
Joe Long | 11.26.02 - 11:55 am | #

The Nigerian riots are about as funny as a fatwa in a crowded elevator ...
dylan | Homepage | 11.26.02 - 3:34 pm | #

I would never in a million years put Falwell and Robertson in the same "fundamental" category. Robertson is a well-educated, articulate, politically savvy individual. If you have listened to his take on the middle east, he is far more educated and knowledgeable than most Catholics on middle East issues. Just as I would never put all St. Blogger's in the same category, I would never put all fundamentalist, conservative, Baptists in the same stew.
Susan | 11.27.02 - 9:06 am | #

Personally, I think that Robertson is a maniac AND that Fundamentalist Muslims need to be put out of my misery. I guess that makes me... confused.
Jon Darby | 11.27.02 - 11:55 am | #

BTW, BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE is written by Bruce Baghemil. Bagemhil is indeed gay, but more importantly he is an expert (and Ph.D.) in zoological biology. His experiments and observations are extremely well documented and the fact that they are "pro gay" is reflective of the fact that homosexuality occurs in all animal species (and even a few plants).
That said, personally I couldn't care less what lions and tigers and bears do on Saturday nights. Humans are infinitely more complex creatures due to their intellect and attribution of value and can't really be compared to animals in terms of most behaviour (i.e. animal sex is essentially rape and animals don't make moral judgments, what of it?), but this does refute, almost conclusively, the "it doesn't happen in nature" argument, so "natural" must be redefined if it is to be used as a justification for condemnation.

Jon Darby | 11.27.02 - 12:02 pm | #

Jon Darby: Animals are not homosexual nor do they do homosexual acts. The homosexuals who interpret animal behavior as sometimes homosexual are merely theorizing. Homosexual acts are sins; animals do not commit any sinful acts.

Humans, as you postulate, are more than animal. But this "more" is a spiritual dimension, which is above nature, and not subject to it. Rather it is subject to God. God has informed us that homosexual acts are sins.
John L. Sillasen | 11.30.02 - 12:35 pm | #

More: Homosexual "sexperts" seem to be unloading their unnatural (St. Paul the Apostle says homosexual behavior is against nature, a perversion of nature) inclinations/experiences on the animal world. This is another attack, meant or not, on the One Who made the animals. Will plantlife be next on the gay agenda to be discovered as homosexual? Homosexuals need to turn to God for redemption, not to give advice.
John L. Sillasen | 11.30.02 - 12:38 pm | #

Robertson and Falwell may be misguided in many of their views, but I've never heard them urge violence toward any group. Evangelicals and even fundamentalists (the Christian kind of course) nearly universally repudiate violence, such as that which has been done occasionally against abortionists. We know that is foreign to the Gospel.
evan donovan | 11.30.02 - 8:20 pm | #

John L. and Jon Darby,

In regards to my original post - Even if there were "gay animals," it still wouldn't make homosexual behavior in humans right. Animals have been known to inbreed (more common than homosexuality among animals, correct me if I'm wrong), but can that be some sort of justification for incest in humans? Of course not. So with the ten percent of so-called "gay animals," the other ninety percent of animals are acting out in a normal manner. The whole ten percent thing seems a bit too much like the Kinsey report, and we all know how and why his results were flawed.
Jennifer Benjamin | Homepage | 12.03.02 - 6:40 am | #

PS - I agree with John L.
Jennifer Benjamin | Homepage | 12.03.02 - 6:41 am | #

There are no homosexual animals, and never have been. It doesn't matter what any animals behaves like, it is not homosexual behavior.

Mosaic law prescribed death to both man and animal involved in sexual behavior. This behavior is not brought on by the animal unless manipulated either directly or indirectly by the human or other humans who influenced the animal sometime in its life.

The animal was not ordered to death because of its sin, since it could not sin. Same today when a dog chews up a child badly; this dog is killed, but not because it has committed a sin, but to prevent further mayhem or death of humans.

There is something mystical in sexual behavior. Animals have their nature, plants have theirs; mankind is ordered in a nobler way than the rest of creation. To go against this order is sin. Sin incurs death for eternity, unless the sinner is redeemed. It is not a genetic thing, but a spiritual thing. Not so with animals, only with people.

Something in human sexuality connects with the divinization process; this may indicate why sinful behavior in the sexual aspect of people warrants grave consequences.
John L. Sillasen | 12.03.02 - 9:59 pm | #