From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: More Discussion of Prejudice Against Homosexuality
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:28:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: kane@buast7.bu.edu

===============================================================================
Article: 84713 of alt.sex
From: jpb@calmasd.Prime.COM (Jan Bielawski)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.sex.motss,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Interpretations of Bible's view of homosexuality vary
Keywords: newspaper article
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:34:13 GMT

	One thing I can never understand: why are the translations of the Bible
so lousy?  Somebody wrote few days ago:

<       The New English Bible, which is considered one of the best scholarly
< translations (although unpopular in some circles because it was, by
< design, a translation into modern (1960s) British English), reads
< 
< 	"Make no mistake; no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty 
< either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers
< or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."

	And THIS is the best scholarly translation??  Why is it that, say,
the prose of James Joyce is being edited with such an incredible attention
to detail while "best" English Bibles are so lax as to render them almost 
useless?  The paragraph quoted above is typical.  The Greek word that
got translated here into "of homosexual perversion" is "malakos" which
literally means "soft" (clothing, etc.) or "unrestrained"/"licentious"
when referring to a person.  It has nothing to do with homosexuality,
and the mistranslation is doubly inexcusable as the connotations of this
word are well documented beginning with Aristotle.  The OT also displays
similar lack of editorial integrity when "qadesh" becomes "sodomite",
conveniently glossing over such details as: "qadesh" meant male *prostitute* 
at a pagan temple AND it is not even known whether they serviced men at all.

	I just don't get it.  Any single slip of this magnitude in a "best"
and "critical" edition of Shakespeare would send critics screaming through 
the roof.  Doesn't the Bible deserve a decent, professional treatment for
a change?  


	Jan Bielawski
	Computervision, San Diego
	jpb@calmasd.prime.com

===============================================================================

Article: 84720 of alt.sex
From: benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Homophobic? Re-Read Your Bible
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:00:04 GMT

 Ok, by popular demand, i typed up the Op-Ed page article about
homosexuals and the Bible from August 17th, 1992 in the New York
Times. It's a cool article i think, even though i know diddly-squat
about religion.

THIS IS A TOTALLY UNAUTHORIZED TRANSCRIPT AND IS LIABLE TO BE FILLED
WITH TYPOS, AND EVEN TOUGH I TRIED TO TO A DECENT JOB I TAKE -NO-
RESPONSABILITY FOR ANYTHING RELATING TO THIS ARTICLE.

********************************************************************

HOMOPHOBIC? RE-READ YOUR BIBLE, By Peter J. Gomez, NYT AUG 17, 1992

********************************************************************

Peter J. Gomez, an American Baptist minister, is professor of
Chrisitian morals at Harvard.

Cambridge Mass.

Opposition to gays' civil rights has become one of the most visible
symbol of American civil conflict this year, and religion has become
the weapon of choice. The army of the discontented, eager for clear
villains and simple solutions and ready fro a crusade in which
political self-interest and social anxiety can be cloaked in morality,
has found hatred of homosexuality to be the last respectable prejudice
of the century.

Ballot of initiatives in Oregon and Maine would deny homosexuals the
protection of civil rights laws. The Pentagon has steadfastly refused
to allow gays in the armed forces. Vice President Dan Quayle is
crusading for "traditional family values." And Pat Buchanan, who is
scheduled to speak at the Republican National Convention this evening,
regards homosexuality as a litmus test of moral purity.

Nothing has illuminated this crusade more effectively than a work of
fiction, "The Drowning of Stephen Jones," by Bette Greene. Preparing
for her novel, Ms greene interviewed more than 400 young men
incarcerated for gay-bashing, and scrutinized their case studies. In
an interview published in the Boston Globe this pring, she said she
found that the gay-bashers generally saw nothing wrong in what they
did, and, more often than not, said theur religious leaders and
traditions sanctionned their behavior. One convicted teen-age
gay-basher told her that the pastor of his church has said,
"Homosexuals represent the devil, Satan," and that the Rev. Jerry
Falwell had echoed that charge.

Christians opposed to political and social equality for homosexuals
nearly always appeal to the moral injunction of the Bible, claiming
that the Scripture is very clear on the matter and citing verses that
support their opinions. They accuse others of perveting and distorting
texts contrary to their "clear" meaning. They do not, however,
necessarily see quite as clear a meaning in biblical passages on
economical conduct, the burdens of wealth and the sin of greed.

Nine Biblical citations are customarily invoked as relating to
homosexuality. Four (Deutoronomy 23:17, I Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46
and II Kings 23:7) simply forbid prostitution, by men and women. Two
others (Leviticus 18:19-23 and Leviticus 20:10-16) are part of what
biblical scholars calls the Holiness Code. The code explicitly bans
homosexual acts. But it also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two
different kinds of seed in the same field and wearing garments with
two different kinds of yarn. Tattoos, adultery and sexual intercourse
during a woman's menstrual period are similarly outlawed.

There is no mention of homosexuality in the four Gospels on the New
Testament. The moral teachings of Jesus are not concerned with the
subject. Three references from St. Paul are frequently cited (Romans
1:26-2:1, I Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Timothy 1:10). But St. Paul was
concerned with homosexuality only because in Greco-Roman culture it
represented a secular sensuality in anyone, including homosexuals. To
say that homosexuality is bad because homosexuals are tempted to do
morally doubtful things is to say that heterosexuality is bad because
heterosexuals are likewise tempted. For St. Paul, anyone who put his
or her interest ahead of God's is condemned, a verdict that falls
equally upon everyone.

And lest we forget Sodom and gonorrah, recall that the story is not
about sexual perversion and homosexual practice. It's about
inhospitality, according to Luke 10:10-13, and failure to care for the
poor, according to Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the inequity of
thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness
was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand
of the poor and the needy." This suggest that Sodom and gomorrah is
about homosexual sex ia an analysis of about as much worth as
suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a treatise on
fishing.

Part of the problem is a question of interpretation. Fundamentalists
and literalists, the storm troopers of the religious right, are
terrified that the Scripture, "worongly interpreted," may separate
them from their values. That fear stems from their own recognition
that their "values" are not derived from the Scripture, as they
publicly claim.

Indeed, it is through the lens of their own prejudices and personal
values that they "read" Scripture and cloak their own views in its
authority. We all interpret the Scripture: Make no mistake. An no one
truly is a literalist, despite pious temptation. The question are, By
what principle of interpretationdo we proceed, and by what means do we
reconcile "what it meant then" to "what it means now?"

These matters are far too important to be left to scholars ans
semnarians alone. our ability to judge ourselves and others rests on
our ability to interpret Scripture intelligently. The right use of the
Bible, anexercise as old as the church itself, means that we confront
our prejudices rather than merely confirm them.

For Christians, the principle by which the Scripture is read is
nothing less than the appreciation of the work and will of God as
revealed in that of Jesus. to recover a liberating and inclusive
Christ is to be freed from the semantic bondage thatmakes us curators
of a dead culture rath than the creature of a new creation.

Religious fundamentalism is dangerous because it cannot accept
ambiguity abd diversity and is therefore inherently intolerant. Such
intolerance, in the name of virtue, is ruthless and uses political
power to destroy what it cannot convert.

It is dangerous, especially in America, because it is anti-democratic
and is suspicious of "the other," in whatever form that "other" might
appear. To maintain itself, fundamentalism must always define "the
other" as deviant.

But the chief reason that fundamentalism is dangerous is that, at the
hand of Rev Pat. Robertson, the Rev. Jerry flawell, and hundreds of
lesser-known but equally worrisome clerics, preachers and pundits, it
uses the Scripture and the Chrsitian practice to encourage ordinarily
good people to act upon their fears rather than their virtues.

Fortunately, those who speak for the religious right do not speak for
all American Chrisitians, and the Bible is not theirs alone to
interpret. the same Bible that the advocates of slavery used to
protect their wicked self-interests is the Bible that inspired slaves
to revolt and their liberators to action.  The same Bible that the
predecessors of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Roberstson used to keep white
churches white is the source of inspiration of the Rev. Martin Luther
King Jr. and the social reformation of the 1960's. The same Bible that
anti-feminists use to keep women silent in churches is the Bible that
preaches liberation of captives and says that the Christ is neither
male nor female, slave nor free.

And the same Bible that nf the basis of an archaic of ancient Israel
and a tortured reading of Paul is used to condemn all homosexuals
behavior includes metaphors of redemption, renewal, inclusion and love
- principles that invite homosexuals to accpet their freedom and
responsibility in Christ and demands that their fellow Christians
accept them as well.

The policy of piety of the fundamentalist religous right must not be
exercised at the expenses of our precious freedoms. And in this summer
of our discontent, one of the most precious freedoms for which we must
all fight is freedom from this last prejudice. |-


***********************************************************************

Hope you enjoyed it, took some time to type :)

Benjamin.

"I would like to welcome President Bush, Mrs Bush and my fellow
astronauts..." - Dan Quayle

When you vote for George Bush, you vote for Dan Quayle.