GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post - *IMPORTANT* Message for Google Group, Usenet and AOL users!

26-01-2005, 01:19 AM

In article ,
wrote:

On 25 Jan 2005 14:26:57 -0800, in rec.gardens
wrote:

[clip funny stuff]

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you
settle this?

[clip more funny stuff]

[Found this at another forum]

That often-reposted bit of political humor originated in May 2000 as an
open letter to "Dr." Laura, who is not actually a doctor of mental health
as she pretends, but only a virulent homophobic radio personality, an
ex-Christian who converted to Judaism & started blaming her personal
homophobia on Jews. Many Jews have been extremely offended by her
misinterpretations of Torah as inciting hatred of gays. For one thing, the
levitical ban applied only to Levites, modernly Cohens, so good thing
Leonard Cohen only got that famous blowjob from Janice Joplin & not from
Scott Joplin. The humor piece was originally a page at the stopdrlaura.com
website, but soon became one of those eternally forwarded e-mails, the
original humorist never credited. It should be credited to J. Kent
Ashcraft & the Stop Dr Bush Coalition Against Hate. It is archived in its
original version he
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm

I'll repost below my old June 2000 commentary, a rebuttal of Dr Laura's
misrepresentations of Torah, written during the same campaign. Mine was
not so humor-oriented as Kent's but addressed seriously the hate-motivated
misrepresentations of Levitical law. Repost:

DOCTOR LAURA, NOT TORAH, HOMOPHOBIC:

I'm sure Dr Laura receives lots of "support" from her Christian admirers,
as Christians do not respect Torah, they call it "Old Testament" & except
when it superificially seems to permit hatred of queers, they regard it as
very secondary to Christian gospels. Christians had the same take back in
slave days -- suddenly the Old Testament had great significance since it
permits slavery & limits the rights of slaves. Laura's excuse has got to
be that she's a convert, & still very deeply effected by Christian
superficiality about Torah. Because while Torah does prohibit homosexual
acts with or among Levites, it does not otherwise prohibit homosexuality.
It does seek to regulate all kinds of human behavior, including
homosexuality.

Saul berates Jonathan as the "son of a perverse, rebellious woman," &
says, "do I not know you have chosen the son of Jess to your own shame, &
to the shame of your mother's nakedness?" [2 Ki 20:30]. Saul indicates
that in Jonathan's homosexuality, he revealed himself like his mother,
Ahinoam. Did this mean she was also homosexual, or only that Jonathan,
like his mother, was attracted to men? What Saul meant was that Ahinoam
worshipped in a Pagan manner in the highplace groves, where orgiastic
rites were a commonplace, including homosexual encounters as is explicit
in the case of the cult Naamah the Amonitess supported in Jerusalem [1 Ki
14:21-24].

But Saul may have been disingenuous, for there is evidence that he himself
desired the beautiful faggotty David. King Saul told his servants, "Speak
to David of LAT, & say, Behold, the king has delight in you" [1 Sm 18:22].
Here the word LAT is weighty with cultic meaning. It literally means
"mysteries" "secret art" or "enchantment." The same word is used to
describe a harvest ritual between Boaz & Ruth, "He went to lie down at the
end of the heap of grain. Then she came LAT (with secret art) & uncovered
his feet & lay down" [Ru 3:7]. "Feet" is here a politism for "Genetalia" &
there's no question but that Boaz & Ruth are here involved in some
fertility harvest ritual. It is in this sexual & cultic context that
David, as King Saul's young court singer, could inevitably become Saul's
catamite. Saul & his son, as Benjamites, were especially apt to be
associated with homosexual cult behavior, as is clear from the story of
the Levite & his concubine [Jg 19:22-24], when the Benjamites sought
homosexual intercourse with the visiting Levite as part of a ritual
prohibited of Yahweh's priesthood (& only of the priesthood) so that the
Levite offered his concubine in compromise, this displeased the Benjamites
who regarded the Levite's rebuff a signal affront. From their offence,
they slew the concubine. Had the Levite not been a Levite, he probably
would have been given a name for the story, but he is not, because the
important factor is that only Levites would be prohibited from the
Benjaminite ritual of sexual submission to the tribe whose territory he
was passing through.

Always bare in mind the regulation against homosexual acts applied
primarily to Yahweh's priesthood, vis, Levites, or today's Cohens, who to
this day can't even marry other Jews outside their caste. In other cases
regarding homosexuality, "He that toucheth the flesh of him that
ejaculates" must afterward purify himself, & will remain unclean until
evening [Lv 15:7]. This is the PRIMARY Levitical law on homosexuality: it
induces a short period of cultic impurity, to be followed by cleansing
ritual. Compared to the period of ritual uncleanliness for women during
menses, this is minimalist pollution, & certainly no more a sin than is
menstruation.

The Hebrew word for "Abomination" which Christians adore to use against
gays actually means a "Cultic impurity" which induces a temporary state of
spiritual uncleanliness. Christians also like to cite Leviticus to show
that the cultic impurity is so astounding that the punishment is death
(perhaps so of Levites) but so too is the punishment death if your child
talks back to you; the mishnaic sages found in Torah justification to ban
capital punishment altogether, & that was a couple thousand years ago.
Christians have never got beyond the merely human & UN-divine urge to kill
people as a favor to God, selectively enjoying the apparent commandment to
kill fags, but overlooking the commandment to kill sassing children. But a
more respectful reading of Torah does not sustain any of this hate-spewing
nonsense. The same uncleanliness occurs for all women during menses, & in
many other situations. It is not indicative of prohibition or unpurifiable
state -- except for Levites. "Touch not my anointed" [1 Chr 16:22; Ps
105:15] is a prohibition against Yahweh's priesthood being involved in all
manner of sacred rites of a sexual nature that were otherwise acceptable
practices outside the priesthood.

Most of the Levitical regulations regard cultic distinctions between Jews
(Yahwists) & rival cults. This is the PRIMARY reason for these laws, to
define tribal & cultic differences that defined worshippers of Yahweh
vis-a-vis worshippers of any other divinity. In Deuteronomy, "Dog" (keleb,
from whence the term kelebite for homosexual) was used to indicate
homosexual prostitutes or male Sacred Ones [Dt 23:17-18], & the
regulations for offerings to Yahweh specifically prohibit "dogs" as well
as female Sacred Ones from using earnings from their cultic behavior as
offerings to Yahweh [Dt 23:18]. Kelebites or sodomists were not otherwise
prohibited from worshipping Yahweh or from making offerings other than
those gained from a practice associated with other divinities or with
cultically impure acts.

King David is to this day regarded as a patron saint in the gay community,
for having admitted his love for Jonathan exceeded his love for any woman.
Some textual scholars have argued that King David's bisexual proclivity
was the "fault" of his grandmother Ruth, a Moabitess, who brought foreign
ritual into the royal line. And Naamah the Amonitess, a queenmother of
Israel, supported a specificaly homosexual hilltop cult; the Moabites &
Ammonites were racially connected thanks to Lot who sired both nations by
laying with his daughters. But was David's bisexuality born of alien
ritual? Archeological evidence collated with the evidence of Judges,
Kings, & Chronicles shows conclusively that an archaic but purely Judaic
form of worship existed on the hilltops of Israel, to honor Asherah (in
Jerusalem) or Anath (earlier in Bethel) as consorts of Yahweh. Most of the
Kings never interferred with hilltop worship; those who did served a
Yahwist minority only, & even then rarely afflicted Asherah worshippers,
but only Baal worshippers. The "normal" Judaism of the time of Kings was
that Asherah would not be brought into the Temple (though it happened
anyway) but would be honored in hilltop groves. So too Levitical law
attempts to place restraints & limitations on such cultic activity,
without actually prohibiting it, except of the priestly class.

So it is clear that Jews were permitted, under Jewish law, to go to the
high place groves & wellcurbs to visit prostitutes, as shown by the
stories of Tamar who disguised herself as a Sacred Prostitute (kedesha) to
seduce Judah & thereby proved herself the most righteous member of the
family; or the equally righteous prostitute Rahab who in midrash
eventually married Joshua; & other scriptural tales of Samson, Hosea, even
Yahweh himself who loved the hypostatic harlot of Samaria, makes
absolutely certain. The laws against prostituting women in scripture, if
you look at the precise wording, are very specific to levitical women; or
at worst can be seen as a double standard that permitted men but not women
to go up to the highplaces for orgiastic purposes. Mostly the Patriarchs,
the Judges, & the Kings married women who were not Jewish at all, & many
were heads of bamah (hilltop) cults. To access these orgiastic groves was
in some mishnaic explanations sinful only if the divinities on these
hilltops were consciously honored, otherwise to copulate in these places
was not an insult to Yahweh -- in which cases the prostitutes would be
considered Zonah (mere hookers) not Kedesha or sacred ones. Such activity
WAS nevertheless "abominable," i.e., cultically impure [2 Sm 1:19; 1:25;
Jr 17:3; Hos 10:8; Eph 6:12; &c]. Nevertheless Jews other than the
priestly class could boink all the boys & girls they wanted, & undergo
cultic cleansing after a carefully defined period of uncleanliness, which
for homosexual acts was only until evening [Lv 15:7].

Hatred of homosexuals & homosexuality is something you can justify through
Torah if you start out from a position of hate & prejudice. No sincere,
learned reading of Torah sustains it. The Talmudists & mishnaic sages go
so far as to argue whether or not lesbians of the priestly class, being
closer to men in their sexual behavior, might qualify for the priesthood.
They concluded they were not so-qualified, just as castrati would not
qualify -- but no sinfulness was involved in their reasoning.

Dr Laura's intentional misrepresentations of Mosaic Law
are intended to justify the deepseated prejudice she feels against gays.
It is true that the Bible can be used to justify any form of hatred as a
Godly hatred, but the deeper one's understanding of Torah, the less
justification for prejudice the learned will find. Hatred & prejudice
demands ignorance, for without ignorance, tolerance predominates.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com