This certainly isn't meant to offend anyone, especially some of my Christian friends on this forum. I just couldn't keep it to myself!

Kim p.s. Feeling especially naughty today so I also posted it on countryside. I was saddened to see the forum was returning to the "days of Hoot"

Dr. Laura Schlessinger recently said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew: "Homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned in any circumstance." The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura that was posted on the Internet.>

Dear Dr. Laura:Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.  I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.  When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.  End of debate. 

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors.  They claim the odor is not pleasing to them.  Should I  smite them?I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.  A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.  Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.  Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?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?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight.  I have to admit that I wear reading glasses.  Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?My uncle has a farm.  He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.  Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2002

Answers

Thanks so much for trying, Kim! Its one of my very favorites.......but didnt last long at CS; Surprise! already went bye bye!

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2002

Actually, this has already been posted at Countryside - by none other than JD Belanger - just read it the other day when I was looking for something else in the archives. Don't have time to look for it now, but it was most definatly there. Wonder if Chuckie will delete it, too?

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2002

Polly, I know and I feel bad it was posted before. Actually when I read the blurb at the beginning I chuckled cause I thought, no way this has been posted, only to find out that JD Belanger had posted it earlier.

It has been deleted but Chuck and I had a very civil exchange of emails so I'm not upset. He even said he found it funny. I do find him an odd choice for new administrator (a christian stock broker???) but God must be teaching me a lesson here because he seems quite reasonable.

Actually I find the entire episode humerous. I can honestly say in my 4 years of posting at Countryside never have I had so much response in 10 minutes!

AS for the Dr. Laura article, I wasn't aware it has been around so long but I think it is a gem.

Kim

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2002

Hi,

I like Dr. Laura's emphasis on folks taking responsibility for their actions (more or less).

But I think she's one of the *meanest* people to hit the airwaves (however, I've led a sheltered life ...cough, cough....for example, I've never once heard Howard Stern!)

Why on earth anyone thinks humiliation is an effective teaching tool is beyond me...the woman needs to call in to "Jesus and Pals" on South Park!

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2002

This is the third or fourth time I've read this and I've always found it at least worth a smile.

Nevertheless, it can't help but be interpreted as antagonistic to folks with a more conservative Christian viewpoint and Chuck was right to delete it. Regardless of what your viewpoint on anything is posting stuff that you know is going to antagonize someone just isn't what CS needs now.

.......Alan.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2002

Kim, read it before, but your timing was perfect at attempting to post it at CS! Too bad Chuck doesn't have an open mind.

I am curious to what Chuck's specific reasons were for it's deletion, was it for the reason Alan ventured? Polite reasons or not,it seems rather hypocritical of Chuck that Hoot would be allowed to post his brand of blather and not your piece. Anyone with half a brain can see it is meant as satire and is an entirely tongue in check type of self depreciating humor, I guess hillbillys will not be able to make redneck jokes anymore over there either ;-)!!!

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2002

Tsk, tsk, lets play nice now :>). Thanks for the chuckle, guess I'll go stone a neighbor now :>)

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2002

Actually, Jay, I think one of the reasons I like this piece so much is because it IS playing nice. In a polite, light-hearted way, it does a beautiful job of displaying just how ludicrous it is to point to Bible verses in order to justify homophobia. These prohibitions and the punishments for breaking them are REAL, and are only a very small portion of the long list in Leviticus, and seeing how ridiculous they sound to us today shows clearly the hypocracy of selectively pointing to the seemingly gay ones.

Can't imagine why Chuck would have found it amusing though, after reading his stuff on CF on the subject. Seems to me the only way a homophobe would find it amusing is if they didnt get it.

And Alan, how is it that piece could be viewed as "antagonistic"? Why is it that anyone visiting the CS forum must be constantly assaulted with religious preaching (once again) on a secular forum no matter how offensive it might be to many, but if someone posts something gently written to display religious hypocracy, it is antagonistic? Certainly one could argue that it had little to do with homesteading, but then so are LOTS of other threads that are left intact.

Peace,

Don't apologize, Kim. You did a good thing, and I for one am proud to know you.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2002

Well, what's funny and what's not is relative to the person reading it. Personally, I think that piece is pretty funny but there's plenty of folks with a conservative Christian viewpoint that would not see the humor. If someone posted a piece making mock of your faith that offended you I'd be right behind you in supporting a call to have it removed.

Seems to me there is a tone of general antagonism developing here that I find to be unfortunate. I haven't the time or inclination to read every thread on the CS forum so perhaps I've missed some that are relevant to this discussion. Since he's returned I've seen just one of Hoot's posts and I liked it right well. He put his little "get saved" tag in at the end of his clearly labled post like he always did and I just let it go on by like I've always done. The quarter in my pocket says "In God We Trust" too and I let that go on by as well. Haven't seen any of Joel's posts since he returned that got my knickers in a knot either. So far it doesn't appear that either one of them is attacking anyone which is as it should be. If they do attack other people then they'd be in the wrong and Chuck would be justified in thwacking them.

Whether you worhship Odin, the Christian God, the Goddess or whatever, religion does play a large role in many people's homesteading experience. If they want to make passing mention of it I'm not going to break out into hives over it. If they want to start condemning others who do not believe the way they do then the moderator will be justified in smacking them.

I'd like to see everyone stop going out of their way to antagonize each other and just get on with discussing homesteading. You don't have to share the other fellow's faith, nor even like it, all you have to do is disagree in a civil manner.

........Alan.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2002

I'm glad we can discuss things here without getting too upset. Since I started this, with what I found to be a very humerous post, let me explain my rationale just a bit.

First of all, I am not mocking anyone's religeous beliefs. I try very hard to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in my everyday life. That means I try to live a life where I love my neighbor and I work hard for peace. That tongue in cheek post does not make fun of Christianity. NO one honestly believes in stoning their neighbor. We all know the Bible is full of parables and passages like "defect in sight" can be interpreted in many ways. Literal interpretation of the Bible (just like the Koran and other great religeous readings) results in unfair treatment of people. We see that when we look at groups like the Taliban who in the name of their religeon have treated segments of their population in terrible ways.

Secondly, groups who chsose to interpret certain passages in a literal sense (while not others) have in my opinion commited terrible crimes against segments of our own population, we don't need to look to Afghanistan to find examples of abuse. In our own country groups have lobbied to keep some from marrying their partners (hence limiting or eliminating both health and life insurance), have made it impossible to adopt children for many couples and the list goes on and on. These are just the legislated discrimination that some of our population face. The actual discrimination goes far far beyond that.

Finally, one woman complained that she did not want her children exposed to such posts when they read countryside. Well how do you think it feels to someone who does not follow the exact sect of Christianity that say Hoot does. Do you think they want their children being told they are going to hell when they read a post? Is that not being more antagonistic (perhaps down right threatening) than a tongue in cheek post which points out inconsistencies in the way we interpret the Old Testament?

Alan, I'm sorry you thought I was being antagonistic, I was trying to make a point in the nicest way I could. I see changes at Countryside which make me very sad. I very much like the forum because they have more homesteading expertise than we have here. I thought that Ken made some very positive changes and I really don't want it to go back to the "good old days" where non-christians, homosexuals, liberals, environmentalists etc were made to feel unwelcome there.

Peace, Kim

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2002

Kim, it was gone before I could see it over at CS. Did you post it under your name or did you resurrect the original posting by JD Belanger? Since most of the "good old days of CS" purists practically worship the ground that JD walks on, I wonder how tight of a knot their knickers would get into if Chuck deleted one of JD's posts?

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2002

Hi Kim,

To be sure I'd like to make it clear that I do not think *you* were trying to be antagonistic. It's just that humor comes across differently to each person and what we think is funny others may not. In a purely textual environment it's mighty easy to misinterpret another person's intent.

Hoot believes what Hoot believes, I believe what I believe and the same for you and everyone else in here. I don't believe in a literal interpretation of anyone's holy book. In fact, I don't particularly care what anyone in this forum or CS has in the way of religious faith or lack of it. My sole interest lies in keeping a civil discourse there and here so that the maximum number of people can use both forums to disseminate the maximum amount of information. Disagreements over religious interpretation seems to be one of the fastest ways to degrade the signal to noise ratio of any group. What I'm trying to advocate is tolerance for each other in a forum where we're all trying to find something useful in return for the time we spend there.

Now the time I've spent on this particular topic is exceeding its value to me so I'm going to bow out of it. It's not necessary to like each other or agree with each others interpretations of relgious text, just be civil when sharing a common area.

.......Alan.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2002

Oh, Alan, I AM having trouble being civil. Just what point to religious text quotes have to make re: piercings when I don't believe? Sorry, I just had to vent.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2002

Ok...here's a question maybe you can help me with..if I do something worthy of being stoned for can I just take it upon myself to get stoned? Surely it would be less work for all involved....? Just wondering hypothetically....:o)

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2002

*Hypothetically* speaking I'd say getting stoned is every adult's right and privelege. I prefer ten year old Kentucky bourbon myself but some prefer a more botanical approach.

.......Alan. ; )

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2002

It so easy to be confused! I can see everyones points.

Personally I'm trying to turn over a new leaf and be more tolerant as Alan suggested. I'm still gonna believe what I believe and I'm still gonna scream holy hell if "they" turn a post about goats into a sermon. For as long as Hoots been on CS he's always included a bible reference. No big deal IMO even tho I rarely read his posts any more.

Alans probably right, that the "offending" post would lack humor to a certain audience but its still funny and has truth in it. Thats probably why it offensive to some!

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2002

Well, as Bob Dylan once (or at least twice) sang, "everybody must get stoned." While I don't quite rank him up there with Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha (and others), he does make a certain salient point... ;-)

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2002

Finally awake...

Okay, Alan; so are you saying that it is okay to post something that the poster knows will be antagonistic to a large group of readers as long as you're posting it with all seriousness? Rather than tongue- in-cheek; as this letter so obviously is? Or that we should simply be adult enough not to post things that might upset others; though it is quite apparent that they have no similar compunctions? Man, I really hate having to be a good person!

Perhaps you are unaware that this board was set up as an escape for those folks who were being persecuted (by way of e-mails, porn spam, virus mail etc..) for stating their beliefs over on CS. And those beliefs ranged from atheism to paganism to several different sects of Christianity.

I find the resurgence of Hoot and Little Bit's religious rants on CS to be an affront to MY beliefs - especially when I read other posts from then that show them all too well in their true light. Almost wish I did believe in the Christian hoo-rah, so that I could believe that they would spend eternity being poked with a pitchfork by demons and imps or roasting on a spit or something..(Said with tongue firmly in cheek; as I do not wish pain on others - even folks who act like that)

And yes, Hoot marks his posts; but Little Bit doesn't, and she likes to sneak in when you aren't looking, to cut and run. And I already see the fundies crawling out of the woodwork; chiming in. Ick. And no, I don't have to read them - maybe I'm just an adrenelin junkie...

I haven't argued with any of them so far; which may be a mistake. I'm of the "give em an inch, they'll take a mile" mind set when it comes to folks like that. As I recall, it took an almost out-and-out religious war to get them to shut up the last time; and then they left, rather than follow the rules of the forum. I'm of the notion that Kim's post didn't hurt a thing - it reminded them that we're still out here. And no, I don't have a bit of problem with the fact that I say US and THEM.

Hugs to you all! Guess I'm gonna go eat chocolate Easter eggs since the kids done swiped all my liqour and I don't have anyway to go get stoned!

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

I have alot of trouble being "civil" to Fundamentalist Christians who take it upon themselves to wage their own version of a jihad against me in their effort to "save me" from the fires of Hell, frankly I don't care if their flavor of religion says they "must do this", this same mindset is also an excuse for Fundamentalist Muslims to blow up themselves and others into tiny little pieces, both here, and across the globe.

The freedom to practice one's religion ends when it comes up in my face and gets entirely too personal for my comfort level, invading my space. I can understand how and why some municipalities have ordinances prohibiting the door to door evangalism practiced by the Jehovah Witnesses, their First Amendment Rights end where my property line starts, and the same attitude carries over to other places like public forums as well.

Preach what you want, but stay out of my face with it, respectful tolerance of all beliefs gathers more followers than spouting Bible verse does any day.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Polly dearest, could you some how "cyber mail" me some of your Easter chocolate??? There is none in the house and the weather is too horrendous to venture out to get some, "stoned" on chocolate, now that's my way to go :-)!!!

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Annie dear, would you like chocolate Easter eggs, chocolate cake, cake mix, brownie mix, chocolate chips, frosting mix, hot cocoa mix, cocoa wheats, a tin of cocoa powder or fancy white chocolate instant coffee?

We DO NOT run out of chocolate in THIS house!! Ever, ever, ever!! Hubs says the best advice he ever got was from my Ex; who told him "If you're coming home and you KNOW you're in trouble before you ever get there, just stop at the convenience market and buy a big bag of M&M's. Toss 'em in the door and go sit in the shed for 10 minutes - it'll be safe for you to go in the house by then!" And I had the impunity to say that that man didn't understand women - shame on me!

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

I normally wouldn't touch this subject but I've always been amazed that truth and honesty have somehow become inappropriate and unpopular responses. Let me say, up front, that whoever disagrees will probably have the last word unless it's something that I haven't explained properly. I'm kinda like Alan, this subject isn't worth a lot of my time or thought.

I don't believe that it's antagonistic to point out that religions are picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that they wish to observe. If the Bible is the "word" then all of it is the "word", not just the parts they like. I have no idea what the Bible would have said in it's original language and before all the translations but I'm willing to bet everything I own that if all the religions were following it word for word that we wouldn't have nearly as many churches or T.V. evangelists! Modern preachers will tell you now, that Heaven and Hell aren't real places but an allegory. When I was a kid attending a Southern Baptist Church, that preacher, standing at the front of the room, stomping and shouting fire and brimstone, never told me that. Hell was a real place! He had you sweating. The way he talked, Hell was down in the basement and I was halfway down the stairs. But, a little money in the collection plate and perfect attendance and I was back up at the head of the stairs.. Attend Bible Study class and I was back in the room.

The tenets of religion change with the mores of society. Last year, at the Southern Baptist Conference, in Waco, TX., they were voting on changing the part that is keeping the women subservient and makes the man the king of the home. Their reasoning was because membership was dropping off! If religions don't change with society, membership drops off. Membership drops off, money drops off. Money drops off, no hugh cathedrals to entice more members with more money. I can think of a lot of reasons for making that change but because membership is dropping off just smacks of commercialism to me.

Please don't misconstrue this as if I'm knocking religion, for those of you that are religious: believe what you want and more power to you. I'm not getting into whether there is a God or not. Just knocking the premise that you can pick and choose the parts of any book of rules, regulations or laws that suit you. You cannot! Not and keep the original concept intact. If it is truly the word of an omnipotent god, then who are we to change even one word?

I've known a lot of people that have needed a good stoning. But, hey, I consider a bullet a kind of stone.

Alison, I'd be happy to help get you stoned if you'll tell me where and when! NZ is just a little North of Little Rock, AR. isn't it?

Wildman, (going where he knows better)

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Well Said wildman! BTW, I think I heard they don't inhale near Little Rock.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Hey, hey, HEY...now c'mon. My very boring traditional Christian upbringing was not anything like that. One of the reasons that mainstream old Christianity (the non-hellfire and brimstone versions of it, like mine) are having trouble with their memberships is b/c they don't believe in scaring the hell out of the parishioners. Neither do they change their theology on a whim, or market it vis-a- vis the way some of the new mega church organizations do.

Jesus did not rant and rave about hell and did not change his theology to suit the consuming mood of the public. He was just a cool guy who taught us to love each other, to heal, and (big emphasis) to not be *hypocritical*. Thus....if you are to love everyone, you can't be judging them all the time, marginalizing them all the time, etc. The whole Gospel message is about LOVE, not burning in hell, the End Times (whatever that's supposed to mean), etc. There's a lot of stuff in the Bible (New Testament, even) that's not the Gospel.

This is probably another thread. Or maybe NO thread. ;-)

Anyway, I personally think if folks looked at the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) with the respect they show the I Ching, the Bhagavad Gita (sp?), or the Hobbit, etc., they might actually like what it says (and I KNOW I'm preaching to the choir here. You folks are all so respectful!)

Just one ol' boring Christian, devoting hours with my church each week attempting to make the world a better place....ALSO trying to not disenfranchise anyone, or to assault you with my beliefs.

Honey or Vinegar? Would you like fries with that? (or Fires with that? LOL!)

Peace back at y'all.

Love,

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2002

btw, Jesus being "just a cool guy" does not mean that I don't believe in his divinity, b/c I do...just thought that needed clarification a bit.

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2002

Wildman and Sheepish, thank you for being honest and sharing your feelings, you both lead by providing good example for other's to follow, something I strive for but don't always accomplish, but you both do it well, and I am proud of you both (big hug).

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2002

Thank you sheepish, once again you have spoken my heart. God Bless You!!!

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2002

Sheepish-I bet Jesus thinks you're pretty cool too!

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2002

Yaaaa that sheepish...now there's my kinda christian.

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2002

Every once in awhile, I read my friends' LIVEJOURNALS, with their permission of course, and although I havent visited this perhaps most enlightening site (to me) for quite some time, I happened on this one, entered by my sweet baby Ali, who just turned 15 last week, and felt the need to share, with my friends who love me, cuz I found it hilarious and profound.......

" i just read an article in the paper about gay parenting. and this dude said something like, "we don't know the long-term effects of same-sex parenting. it's something we approach with caution."

so i checked over my body for physical deformations or grotesque characteristics.

"you can't get pregnant by accident when you're gay, so in some cases, gay parents are more prepared than straight parents."

i remember when i was eleven i went to girl scout camp and everyone was talking about their families and some nine-year-old girl who constantly talked about her church camp and her boyfriend (sort of perverted, isn't it?) asked me about mine. i, being ignorant and sheltered, said the "l" word. and i got my very first taste of shocked faces and i pretty much looked around in mild surprise until one girl said "yuck!"

that's when i started laughing.

i'm rather pleased with my reaction."

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2002