RE: a few responses lumped together (Jim and Burgy take note)

From: John Burgeson (
Date: Sat Mar 22 2003 - 11:32:37 EST

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: ID science (subtopic 1)"

    Moorad wrote to the local newspaper as follows (in part): "We are forewarned
    in Scripture, according to the New American Standard Bible translation, that
    "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
    homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
    swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.""

    Would it not have been more in the spirit of scientific honesty, Moorad, to
    have pointed out (1) that the word "homosexuals" means an orientation, not
    an activity and that the translation above is challenged by many biblical

    When one looks only at arguments and evidences for his own opinions, and
    refuses to consider contraries, it becomes difficult to take his position


    >From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <>
    >To: <>, <>
    >Subject: RE: a few responses lumped together (Jim and Burgy take note)
    >Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:22:41 -0500
    >Letter that appeared in the Raleigh News & Observer. Moorad
    >The News & Observer
    >February 24, 2003
    >Unnatural acts
    >Edition: Final
    >Section: Editorial/Opinion
    >Page: A8
    >Index Terms:
    >Estimated printed pages: 1
    >Article Text:
    >In defense of "tolerance," a Feb. 14 letter-writer disparagingly
    >referred to our society as "homophobic" and wrongly affirmed the
    >"naturalness" of a homosexual orientation. Our nation was founded on the
    >Christian faith and many of our policies, e.g., Abstinence Until
    >Marriage, are based on Christian teachings and morality.
    >We are forewarned in Scripture, according to the New American Standard
    >Bible translation, that "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
    >adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the
    >covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the
    >kingdom of God." Must we, therefore, consider all such acts as natural
    >and give hearty approval to those who practice them?
    >Diversity is really based on knowing that each one of us is created in
    >the image of God, the Creator referred to in our Declaration of
    >Independence. Tolerance and knowledge of who we are is best practiced
    >when we "love the sinner and hate the sin."
    >Moorad Alexanian
    >Copyright 2003 by The News & Observer Pub. Co.
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: []
    > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:37 AM
    > To:
    > Subject: a few responses lumped together (Jim and Burgy take
    > Answer to Jim and Burgy
    > Brothers and sisters,
    > Do we need as some do,
    > letters of recommendation to you or from you?
    > You are our letter, written on our hearts,
    > known and read by all,
    > shown to be a letter of Christ ministered by us
    > written not in ink but by the spirit of the living God
    > not on tablets of stone but on tablets that are hearts of flesh.
    > Such confidence we have through Christ toward God.
    > Not that of ourselves we are qualified
    > to take credit for anything as coming from us
    > rather our qualification comes from God
    > who has indeed qualified us as ministers of a new covenant
    > not of letter but of spirit
    > for the letter brings death but the spirit brings life.
    > II Corinthians 3:1b-6
    > The Law was never rejected by Paul. It was written on his heart.
    >For those of you who have read my paper, Jesus sought to teach us that
    >what was formerly meted out to us by the Temple priests, should be
    >intuitive, written on our hearts, therefore ending priestly rule and the
    >need for the corrupt temple sacrifical system in Jerusalem, making
    >"learned behavior intuitive." What is not explicity embraced or
    >condemned in the NT can be learned from the OT rather than using what is
    >not explicity embraced or condemned in the NT as "loopholes" which is
    >precisely what was wrong with the written Law.
    > Now let's look at what the brother of a past president of
    >yeshiva university has to say about the homosexual argument.
    > (Maurice Lamm, The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage, Harper & Row
    > I remember reading the account of a gay Jewish couple's
    >"engagement" announcement a few years back. The couple described the
    >joyous response of the Chavurah gathering, who danced around the couple,
    >singing siman tov, mazal tov. "It is natural that we should want to
    >celebrate our friends' happiness; why shouldn't we rejoice over the
    >good fortune of two men who have found a loving relationship?" The
    >homosexual argument is paraphrased as follows in an article by Hershel
    > Granted that marriage in Judaism has always been heterosexual;
    >and granted that one of the major purposes of marriage has always been
    >procreation in order both to populate the world and to pass on the
    >Covenant way of life. But is that the sole purpose and meaning of Jewish
    >marriage? What of the legitimacy of sexual pleasure and release - is
    >that not also Jewish? Longterm abstinence is no more feasible, bearable,
    >or desirable for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. And does not
    >marriage have other purposes as well: the fostering of mutual affection,
    >care, trust, sacrifice and support; the encouragement and sustenance of
    >growth-intellectual, esthetic, moral and spiritual; the sharing of pain
    >and anxiety, the nurturing of joy and hope; the overcoming of loneliness
    >-all of these on the basis of an enduring commitment of faithfulness? Is
    >not marriage the primary and preferred and, indeed, the only fully
    >acceptable context for furthering these purposes? If it is
    >Torah-teaching that the fullest possible meaning of personhood is to be
    >found in and through marriage, shall we, because we are homosexuals, be
    >denied the right to seek such meaning and to develop such personhood? If
    >God, in whose image we homosexuals, too, are created, has directly or
    >indirectly caused or willed or allowed us to be what we cannot help
    >being-men and women unable to function heterosexually-r-an we believe,
    >and can you heterosexuals believe, that He wants us to be denied the
    >only possible arrangement whereby we can live as deeply a human life as
    >we are capable of? Here precisely is the focus of the homosexual
    >argument-The union will bring into being a caring and loving
    >relationship. Is the purpose of marriage not also companionship? Unlike
    >celibacy and masturbation, this strikes the note of a meaningful
    >partnership with another human being.
    > "Loving, selfless concern" and "meaningful, personal
    >relationships," the great slogans of the now dated "new morality" and
    >the exponents of situation ethics, have become the litany of sodomy in
    >our times. Simple logic should permit us to use the same criteria for
    >excusing adultery or any other act heretofore held to be immoral; and
    >indeed, that is just what has been done, and it has received the
    >sanction not only of liberals and humanists, but of certain religionists
    >as well. "Love," "fulfillment," "exploitive," "meaningful"-the list
    >itself sounds like a lexicon of emotionally charged terms drawn at
    >random from the disparate sources of both Christian and
    >psychologically-oriented agnostic circles. Logically, we must ask the
    >next question: What moral depravities cannot be excused by the sole
    >criterion of "warm, meaningful human relations" or "fulfillment," the
    >newest semantic heirs to "love"? Love, fulfillment, and happiness can
    >also be attained in incestuous contacts and certainly in polygamous
    >relationships. Is there nothing at all left that is "Sinful,"
    >"unnatural," or "immoral" if it is practiced "between two consenting
    >adults"? According to midrashic teaching, the generation of Noah was
    >eradicated by the Flood because it had descended to such forms of
    >immorality as the writing of formal marriage contracts for sodomy
    >(homosexuality) and buggery (a man-beast relationship), a practice
    >prevalent in the Athens of Plato and the Rome of Nero but unheard of in
    >the long history of the Jewish people.
    > (Note how Lamm accuses the Christians as being a source of
    >legitimation of homosexuality)
    > The act of homosexuality is prohibited, but all practicing
    >homosexuals cannot be arbitrarily lumped together. The response must be
    >to each individual and to his motives. Dr. Judd Marmor delineates four
    >types of homosexual activity. "Genuine homosexuality" is based on
    >strong preferential erotic feelings for members of the same sex.
    >"Transitory homosexual behavior occurs among adolescents who would
    >prefer heterosexual experiences but are denied such opportunities
    >because of social, cultural or psychological reasons."Situational
    >homosexual exchanges" are characteristic of prisoners, soldiers and
    >others who are heterosexual but are denied access to women for long
    >periods of time. "Transitory and opportunistic homosexuality" is that of
    >delinquent young men who permit themselves to be used by pederasts in
    >order to make money or win other favors, although their primary erotic
    >interests are exclusively heterosexual. To these may be added, for
    >purposes of our analysis, two other types. The first category, that of
    >genuine homosexuals, may be said to comprehend two subcategories: those
    >who experience their condition as one of duress or uncontrollable
    >passion which they would rid themselves of if they could, and those who
    >transform their idiosyneracy into an idealogy, i.e., the gay militants
    >who assert the legitimacy and validity of homosexuality as an
    >alternative to heterosexuality. The sixth category is based on what Dr.
    >Rollo May has called "the new Puritanism," the peculiarly modern notion
    >that one must experience all sexual pleasures, whether or not one feels
    >inclined to them, as if the failure to taste every cup passed at the
    >sumptuous banquet of carnal life means that one has not truly lived.
    >Thus we have transitory homosexual behavior not of adolescents, but of
    >adults who feel that they must "try everything" at least once in their
    >lives. Clearly, genuine homosexuality experienced under duress (Hebrew:
    >ones) most obviously lends itself to being termed pathological,
    >especially where dysfunction appears in other aspects of the
    >personality. Opportunistic homosexuality, ideological homosexuality, and
    >transitory adult homosexuality are at the other end of the spectrum and
    >appear more reprehensible. As for the intermediate categories, while
    >they cannot be called illnesses, they do have a greater claim on our
    >sympathy.... Hence there are types of homosexuality that do not warrant
    >any special consideration, because the notion of ones or duress (i.e.,
    >disease) in no way applies. Where the category of mental illness does
    >apply, the act itself remains toevah (an abomination), but the fact of
    >illness lays upon us the obligation of pastoral compassion,
    >psychological understanding, and social concern. In this sense,
    >homosexuality is no different from any other anti-halakhic act, where it
    >is legitimate to distinguish between the objective act itself, including
    >its ethical and moral consequences, and the mentality and inner
    >development of the person who perpetrates the act. For instance, if a
    >man murders in a cold and calculating fashion for reasons of profit, the
    >act is criminal and the transgressor is criminal. If, however, a
    >psychotic murders, the transgressor is diseased rather than criminal,
    >but the objective act itself remains a criminal act. The courts may
    >therefore treat the perpetrator of the crime as they would a patient,
    >with all the concomitant compassion and concern for therapy, without
    >condoning the act as being morally neutral. To use halakhic terminology,
    >the objective crime remains a maaseh averah [a violative action],
    >whereas the person who transgresses is considered innocent on the
    >grounds of ones. In such cases, the transgressor is spared the full
    >legal consequences of his culpable act, although the degree to which he
    >may be held responsible varies from case to case. The response to the
    >homosexual must contain a number of ingredients: intelligence,
    >compassion, personal strength, and an abiding loyalty and commitment to
    >Jewish belief and Jewish history.
    > ------------------------
    > Note that Lamm expresses "an abiding loyalty and commitment to
    >Jewish belief and Jewish history." Where is the same among Christians?
    > Note also that there is a Jewish (aka religious argument) and a
    >homosexual (non-religious argument). Note also that orthodox Jewry does
    >not accept the homosexual argument.
    > In my paper I describe for you where in genesis there is
    >evidence for eugenics culminating in 20th century disparities in IQ
    >testing that demonstrate Ashkenazi Jewry has the highest mean IQ in the
    >world. (Paul Johnson, The History of the Jews, Kevin Macdonald, A People
    >that shall Dwell alone, Hernsteinn and Murray, The Bell Curve). These
    >religious people reject homosexuality and also have some of the highest
    >birth rates in the world. Many of these Eastern European Jews form the
    >very settlement population that refuses to leave Palestinian territory.
    >Their refusal is the nexus of tension in the Middle East. They also have
    >powerful communities in New York such as New Square that bloc-vote (as
    >their communities are theocracies) to elect politicians as they did for
    >Hilary Clinton. Chuck Schumer was elected by Brooklyn Jews and Wall
    >Street. Schumer champions abortion and unrestricted immigration ( he
    >held a press conference with Carol Maloney on a case of infibulation to
    >morally justify unrestricted immigration which later turned out to be
    >bogus). All of these behaviors supported by Schumer and Clinton favor
    >the orthodox breeding communities over indigenous Americans because
    >"niche theory in ecology predicts that a peripatetic group religiously
    >committed to a reproductive strategy of quantity and quality birthing is
    >necessarily expansionist and covetous of the elite niches of any host
    >civilization with which it interacts."'
    > The suggestion that homosexuals assist their affinals
    >(genetically related kin) as some sort of justification for
    >homosexuality and a repudiation of the fact that homosexuals do not
    >procreate, was made without a reference, and does not stand. It does
    >stand however, if we are talking about Jewish homosexuals. If the IQ
    >stats are true, and Jews on average are potentially smarter than the
    >rest of us, we can understand how Jewish homosexuals can be seen to be
    >supporting their orthodox affinals. All Jews are descended from orthodox
    >communities. If the Jewish homosexuals rise to the top of the homosexual
    >movements (virtually all the organized homosexual/feminist/abortion
    >movements are championed by secular Jews: e.g. gloria steinem),
    >encourage homosexuality and this decreases our birth rates, and unweaves
    >our social fabric (I live in NYC - homosexuals create a cohesive insular
    >culture organized against Christianity's sexual mores - they are
    >deliberately targeting their own birth religion in many cases) while at
    >the same time orthodox Jewry remains isolated in their own ghettos (get
    >is a hebrew word - Jews aren't put in ghettos - They create them to
    >remain separated from us) then the segregated Jewish communities remain
    >free from the damage (their birth rates remain high - their families
    >cohesive) while Jewish secular (affinals) homosexuals encourage our
    >"Canaanite" behavior that eventually "spews us out of the land." Isn't
    >the high immigration justified by our low birth rates - how often have
    >you heard it said we have to import people to keep our country going?
    >abortion, birth control, feminism and homosexuality have taken their
    >toll since the '60s.
    > It is now thought by many archeologists that the Jews did not
    >take Canaan in a rapid military campaign but over time as the Canaanites
    >violated levitical law and were "spewed out of the land" eventually to
    >be displaced.
    > The remark about the sterile castes being compared to human
    >behavior - let's compare. Haplodiploidy in the genus Hymenoptera to
    >which the eusocial bees, ants and wasps belong produce STERILE CASTES
    >that assist the breeders. They are born sterile and their function is
    >predetermined as in any caste. The Temple sacrificial system is a caste
    >system. It determines who is to have what function in society, indeed
    >even who is to be accepted in society. Remember Jesus healing and
    >returning the healed to the community? Hinduism is also a caste system.
    >We often say the Hindu caste system is evil, but the Judaic system is
    >most probably an offshoot by way of Zoroastrianism. How can you compare
    >eusocial insects with human beings unless you also accept predetermined
    >human function and establish a caste system - which is essentially
    >SLAVERY? Did you really think about the comparison you were making?
    > I for my part, will not ridicule the lack of scientific or
    >religious knowledge displayed by those who would sarcastically
    >characterize my comments. Perhaps now that I have elucidated my position
    >at length there may come a glimmer of understanding. I will pray for
    > The argument for homosexuality is a homosexual argument as
    >Maurice Lamm has perfectly described it. It is not nor can it ever be a
    >religious argument. You either embrace religion or you don't. To the
    >extent you embrace religion, your survival and yes even your hegemony
    >(as can be seen in those orthodox communities in Palestinian territory)
    >are assured. Consider the IQs, and the enormous influence of orthodox
    >Jewry and then consider America at war with itself and the
    >disestablishment of the mainstream churches currently underway.
    > Consider the final words of the Old Covenant:
    > Be careful not to make a covenant with the natives of the land
    >against which you are going, or they will prove a snare in your midst.
    >No: you shall demolish their altars, smash their sacred pillars and cut
    >down their sacred poles. Exodus 34 (10-14)
    > religion evolved to ensure our survival. abandon religion and be
    >"consumed by fire" a Biblical term for death and extinction.
    > If you haven't read Wilson's Darwin Cathedral, go to the
    >bookstore and just read the section on what John Calvin did for the
    >people of Geneva and then consider that we have abandoned that kind of
    >religious dedication and consider the implications.
    > He who has eyes to see - let him see. If he has ears to hear -
    >let him hear.
    > rich

    Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 22 2003 - 11:35:21 EST