|
Index
•
|
|
Welcome • |
|
About Us • |
|
|
| Hacktreks Travel • |
| First Chapters • |
| Reviews • |
| Dreamscapes • |
| Lifestyles • |
REALITY CHECK & Readers Feedback
GAY BISHOPS & OTHER MODERN ILLUSIONS
• James Campion
A gay Episcopal Bishop.
What’s next? A Jewish Pope? A black Grand Poobah of the KKK? How about Larry Flynt heading up the National Organization of Women or Rush Limbaugh gaining a chair in the ACLU? Maybe I’d like to be a Wiccan priest? That would be a good one.
It’s freeform dogma.
Get on board...I love humans. I am proud to be one. We set up these insane rules around metaphysical concepts like God and attach tangible regulations surrounding culture and clothes and sexuality and food and all sorts of ridiculous things to it, then we like to excuse these rules willy nilly to allow us to still participate in the metaphysical concepts based on new sets of intangible rules and laws.
I don’t care if Reverend Gene Robinson of the New Hampshire Episcopalians is a homosexual. But that doesn’t matter here. Others who have commented on this hot-button topic do. And that doesn’t matter either.
What matters is Episcopalian law. Like other monotheistic institutions that utilize the Holy Bible as a guideline, it deems homosexuality a sin banned by God in the language of Moses in Leviticus circa 1445 bce.
Episcopalians, as all Christians, use the Letters of St. Paul to both the Corinthians and the Romans as a guideline of metaphysical law to damn homosexuality.
Some may agree or disagree with any part of these documents, but you cannot deny their language or intent. And you certainly cannot expect to ignore them while heading up a religion that calls these things immutable laws of the universe.
How can Mr. Robinson claim dominion over the other laws within his institution now that he has sidestepped one? What, some interpretations of Biblical law are debatable, but others are not? It’s like Thou Shall Not Kill.
There’s no comma after this. It’s not Thou Shall Not Kill, unless Congress declares war or unless you’re hungry or pissed or happen to not like the culture of the indigenous inhabitants of a continent you feel destined to rule.
What a bunch of fucking phonies we are. This is why I have no use for institutions based on stringently nonsensical regulations, but some people do, and if they do, they should stick to these laws and boundaries or get the hell out.
It’s like these supposed vegetarians who eat fish or these Catholics who want to get divorced and still get married in the church, or people of the Jewish or Islamic faith mixing their precious cultures or people making fifty-buck bets and calling that gambling.
I’m reminded of that guy who recently claimed contentious objector status after joining the army. What did he think the army was, summer camp with tanks?
If you choose to head up some religious institution that uses the Bible as the immutable Word of God, then you cannot also be gay.
Has anyone read the Bible lately?
I mean really read it. Study its intentions and messages and metaphors? Because I have, several times during the research for my last book; and I’m here to report that if people actually read the damn thing, they would not be too quick to start restructuring it to meet their generation’s needs or evolved point of view.
That’s the rub of the Bible. It’s not the US Constitution. It doesn’t have amendments. Moses has been gone a good long time, and the last guy to question its veracity in the realm of human spirituality was hung up on a crossbeam. And that was two thousand long years ago.
And if you are one of those who think the Bible the absolute direction of the cosmos and the central theme of an omnipotent creator of the universe, and consider its verse the conscience of your judger and redeemer, its time to come to grips with its serious nature. Serious, unwavering balls-to-the-wall nature.
I think if people actually read the Bible, there could be trouble. But people don’t read. They watch television and snowboard and make money and try and get laid. And when it comes time to do whatever they feel like doing or hating or co-opting, they interpret things like the Bible in their own interesting way.
People like to take their righteousness in doses, or like some wise person said: Anything in moderation cannot hurt you.
Here’s where I quote a great man of fiduciary wisdom for our age, James V. Campion, my pop, who, when addressing the sticky subject of income tax says; "People must have it taken out little by little in each paycheck throughout the year, because if people actually knew what percentage they paid in annual income tax, they’d be jumping out of windows." Listen, I have no problem with anyone doing whatever they want. I love it. But for the religious set, isn’t there a set of rigorous rules, however insane, that must be abided to be part of the clan, much less lead it?
If not, all Wiccan incantations can now be ordered through me here at The Desk.
© James Campion August 8th 2003
realitycheck@jamescampion.com
James Campion .com
Readers letters August 23rd
James,
All your interesting commentary about selective observance of biblical precepts notwithstanding, I believe it my divinely inspired duty to make a fundamental correction to centuries of revised and standardized misreading of the Sixth Commandment.
It's "Thou Shalt Not *Murder*." Not "kill," as his majesty, King James had it. It's "murder."
The Hebrew word for "kill" is "harog"
The Hebrew word for "murder" is "retzach."
The commandment, in the original Hebrew, states: "Lo Tirtzach",
not "Lo Taharog".
"Thou shalt not murder," not "thou shalt not kill."
This is a specific delineation, in which the author (Author) of the Bible saw a fundamental difference between killing and murdering. Murder, i.e. killing maliciously, is abhorrent. But sometimes killing, like in cases of self-defense or the death penalty (elsewhere described and delineated in the same book), is not only permitted but also required. The rabbis of the Talmud agonized over these issues for centuries, but they unequivocally issued the following statement: "If one comes to kill you -- arise and kill him first." Or, in the words of the late, great author Chaim Potok: "Sometimes you just have to smash."
It may not excuse wholesale mass killings in the name of manifest destiny or similar slaughter perpetrated by countries throughout the world and history. But it certainly does justify chasing down archterrorists and killing them wherever they are, whether they hide in caves or run pseudopolitical authorities.
Heshy
jc,
Leviticus also says if we see our neighbor working on the Sabbath, slay him. We can skip that one, no? And half of St. Paul's letters, according to a number of philologists who researched the subject, are forgeries. Indeed, quite a bit of the New Testament is likely written by people claiming to be someone other than who they are. The pitfalls of working with a document compiled, collaborated on, revised and shuffled over the centuries.
Even Genesis has conflicting accounts of how Adam and Eve came into being -- one from southern Israel, one from northern, and yet another... How can you follow a book that contradicts itself? One Gospel says Mary (Magdalene) was the first to see Jesus raise, another that Peter saw the risen Christ first. And Catholics go by the first so they could have a male pope, although no pope is anywhere in the Bible called for. So it seems to me your rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. v.
Dear Mr. Campion:
I enjoy your weekly editorials in "The Aquarian". Wednesday's piece "Gay Bishops and Other Modern Illusions" was a bit confusing. Isn't it a good thing that an openly gay man can serve as a bishop in a modern church? Shouldn't we progress from the laws of thousands of years ago? You seem to be a bit of a purist from some of the things you mentioned. In my opinion, it is important to strike a balance in life and going to any extreme is dangerous. Nothing humans do is pure because that is our nature - duality. We all must struggle to overcome evil - the fear and hatred inside our own hearts. You spoke of the Bible damning homosexuality. Most of the Bible was written by ancient Hebrews (who may have been wise rabbis) but it is a different world today.
Jesus never said anything against homosexuality - in fact He even asks us to "Love our enemies" in the Sermon on the Mount. As far as I'm concerned, that sermon is all you need.
You know as well as I do, the Bible was not written by God but by men (inspired, but men nonetheless). Nothing is perfect that humans do in this world. I would love it if "Thou shall not kill" was an absolute law but the Hebrew translation is actually "Thou shall not murder" which allows us to kill the enemy in times of war. Is that really what God commands? I'm with you on that one - He/She is a God of Peace and I think we are meant be completely nonviolent! But sadly, we have to progress much farther to evolve from the selfish brutes we are. Isn't it better if an individual only eats fish and stays away from red meat; better than being a rabid carnivore? You make it seem that if you are a vegetarian, you must become a hard-core vegan and never wear a leather jacket either.
C'mon James, lighten up. I have a sister who is a religious fanatic and have had many dealings with extremism in my lifetime. Believe me, it’s not a good thing. In the words of John Lennon: "all you need is love".
Peace,
Mark Deats
Sir,
Having recently poured through your entertaining book, "Trailing Jesus", it is obvious from the tone of this particular piece that your deriding organized religion parallels that of a Jesus Christ as the first-century, political and social revolutionary that he appears to be in your work. Therein, your interpretation of Episcopalian law is as inflexible as the laws you satirize here. I know your point was to puncture the silly nature of humanity’s nonsensical hold of ancient traditions, but sometimes we create our own realities from these stories. And although I agreed with much of what your book exposes as truths and found its themes endearing, are they not, and I believe someone is actually quoted in the book as stating, "just another set of rules?" An interesting conundrum for us all. One, I think you would agree, Jesus Christ was dissecting in his philosophy.
Best,
Simon
Hey James,
Your article for the most part is agreeable. The only problem I have is you said you have read the Bible several times thoroughly. If that were true you would have found the opposite about the guy on the cross. He was against religion, not the Bible. His problem was and is the same problem you are having now, which is "Don't restructure it to meet your generations needs or evolved point of view". The Bible from Genesis to Revelation is about him; therefore he could not have been against it.
Kind regards, Kelly
Hey, This whole column is a classic, one of your best. This passage should get in Bartlett's all time quotations: "I love humans. I am proud to be one. We set up these insane rules around metaphysical concepts like God and attach tangible regulations surrounding culture and clothes and sexuality and food and all sorts of ridiculous things to it, then we like to excuse these rules willy nilly to allow us to still participate in the metaphysical concepts based on new sets of intangible rules and laws." Then your use of snowboarding. Classic!!!! I love how that works in with "making money" and "getting laid", "snowboard" being a euphemism for "feckless activity that I myself do not find of any inherent use." You make many of your best points in this article. I was just debating this issue with somebody and this came in handy.
LOVE IT! Al Q
James,
I knew you'd have something to say on this topic! The VERY reason I claim to be agnostic...I feel religion is full of hypocrisy anyway. The very people who preach love and tolerance are the first to cast stones if someone is slightly different than them and the first to cover up for each other if someone is caught with their pants down (literally). Times HAVE changed and people should feel more free live honestly...as long as it isn't hurting anyone else. The so-called "model" citizens and clergy of the church are often the devil in disguise-altar boys beware! The church has no more right to tell us how or who we shall love than President Bush has to outlaw gay marriages.
Donna
JC,
I understand your need to expose yet another case of "phonies" having
it any way they want, changing the rules to suite their needs, etc. But isn't that the real issue: that people decided to allow progress to occur and follow Jesus' beliefs of inclusion and diversity and not stick to out-dated tradition. What other obvious gain do these people expect to get anyway by adopting what is probably a culturally unpopular move? I would think the tone of your missive would be better suited as a celebratory triumph of freethinkers trying to overcome the rigidity of old and antiquated institutions. For once, people decided NOT to bother with all these laws and interpretations that so divide us as people. Otherwise, there is no need for you to comment, since you hold no respect or devotion to said institutions and their dogma anyway from the start and you EXPECT this kind of hypocrisy. Actually, you could cut this a couple of ways. Doesn't the New Testament. contradict things in the Old Testament? Different groups only use parts of the Bible and then add there own extras. It's like the Special Edition DVD!!!! Which version is God's Framework? (Charles Manson after all used the different version of the New Testament to murder) Do you choose not to accept 1. God is creator 2.Omnipotent giver of law 3.Bible is framework for humanity 4.Some of the above 5. All of the above. 5. None of the above?????? (Or as Bill Cosby said; "Righhhtt! What's a Bible?")
JC,
Regarding your thoughts on the Middle East "peace process," (Final Answers on "The Roadmap to Peace" 6/25)
I think your point is that it doesn't matter what you or I think because you (we) have no control over the situation and it doesn't really affect us anyway. If my interpretation is somewhat correct, I believe you shortchange yourself and the influence your words can have on the education and/or inspiration of others. Perhaps someone who hears you speak or reads your treatise will be moved in some small way to make a new choice, or treat their neighbor differently. It's easy to be cynical, especially when there is so much evidence to support this notion. Faith is all about believing in something that can't be seen or touched, and I'm sure the people in South Africa and Northern Ireland never believed that things could change, but they did. I am currently reading your new book, "Trailing Jesus", so I ask you - What would Jesus think?
CB
RE:Ann Coulter Readers Letters August 18th
Mr. Campion,
First off, while I don't read your comments very often, I admire what you are doing. Having read a somewhat wishy-washy commentary on Ann Coulter in the New York Times, I was curious about what others had to say.
I found your comments of July 3 ("All Hail Ann Coulter" 7/3) refreshing and on the mark.
I noticed your associating Ms. Coulter's act with Goebbels. I imagine many readers would view that as a backhanded way of associating the rightwing with Nazis (akin to Coulter's own style of associating liberals with communists). But apropos, I have this anecdote.
My 87 year-old mother is a devoted listener to Rush Limbaugh. She always carries her radio to listen, and has the headphones on whenever he is on the air, even in the midst of being with her grandkids. Not long after she started listening, she told me, "I haven't been this excited about politics since I was a teenager." The comment struck me because I had recently learned from her siblings that in her teens, my mother was the only member of her family (then in Berlin) who joined the Hitler youth movement. She used to spend hours in front of the radio listening to Hitler and Goebbels (the latter however, not having Rush's gift for gab). Long ago, she had once mentioned that Hitler made fun of Winston Churchill's initials (WC) in his radio chats. I am reminded of this whenever I hear Rush saying Robert Reich's name the way he does. Keep up the good work, anonymous
Mr. Campion,
I don't know who Ann Coulter is... the "conservatives" appear every bit as ridiculous to me as the liberals. However, don't dismiss her views on Joe McCarthy. Do you think our government corruption is a strictly modern phenomenon? Joe McCarthy had no idea the depth and scope of the conspiracy he touched upon. I suggest you listen to the lengthy interview with Hutton Gibson, Mel Gibson's father, on the Alex Jones' show.
He attended the McCarthy hearings, and he has extensive knowledge on the subject. Prescott Bush was countering McCarthy at every turn... remember Prescott? - trading with the enemy?
Stay strong, Randy
Campion,
Ann Coulter - Howard Stern. Lesbian strippers - Communist liberals.
It’s all the same shit.
Dennis P.
Reality Check,
As a conservative Republican and someone who has served my country, I am here to denounce the mean-spirited nonsense and lies someone like Ann Coulter spews in the guise of conservative thought, but is really a way for her to advance her career as a celebrity, which, as your brilliant satirical piece so clearly pointed out, is exactly what she is doing with alarming success.
She is an ass and has abandoned all credibility with her grandstanding and name-dropping and name-calling. And when she is called on it, like recently when Bill O’Rielly had her on his show and called her comments "overly vitriolic for shock value", she bristled and said that no one can take a joke. So now it’s a joke? What is it, honey? A joke or history?
Joseph McCarthy was a terrible blight on this country that we not only should never forget, but also utilize to keep radical ideology from entering the realm of sober debate, whether it carries the dubious distinction of being liberal or conservative.
Coulter does not speak for me or many of my conservative brethren, as I suppose a strutting idiot like Michael Moore hardly speaks universally for all of liberalism.
Brett Creamer
James,
Not sure if you get HBO, but Coulter was recently a guest on Politically Incorrect. I think the panel was an extremely well spoken black reverend/writer and I think Dennis Miller was in there. I found her arguments pretty weak. I believe the discussion was what to do with the Iraqi soldiers captured and is bullying justified to get information. She was pretty whiney and seemed to back down quickly when her facts were corrected by someone a bit more informed. Dennis just made great jokes and kept slinging comments in his trademark manner. Maybe they'll repeat it soon.
Donna
Sir,
Regarding your column on the inevitability of lies during wartime, ("Sober View From The Front" 7/23/03) inevitability is not grounds to condone, which is clearly what you're doing. That is plainly illogical. It's also unreasonable and moronically backward. You could as easily say that the myriad other forms of corruption exploding throughout our government are inevitable and thereby cause for no consideration, much less concern. "Gee, big corporations in bed with their auditors and the regulatory bodies which oversee their business are by definition criminally greedy and thoroughly fraudulent. But there you go! Guess we'll see an endless parade of failures which bankrupt investors and plunder pensions and retirement savings. Oh well, that's how it is. You better be a big worldly grown-up and not complain about something horribly wrong which we just cannot change." Leaders lie in wartime, leaders lie to create wartime. This is wrong. It should be stopped. That's ! grown-up.
John Mayer
Fats, You've been sniffing too much carbon paper. Without a doubt Pres Bush is the easily the best president in our lifetimes. All the intelligence from around says that Iraq had weapons. So how is this lying? He is doing what is right for the long run, i.e. reducing taxes including getting rid of double taxation, privatizing Medicare and social security, wiping out terrorist and all those who harbor them. Some of these are not popular and despite that he has the fortitude to keep going. This is in contrast to the rapist who held office previously, and chose to live by weekly polls and was immersed in stupid gimmicks to appease the populace in the short run, like firing some cruise missals into Afghanistan and Sudan.
By the way, the Jets suck.
Your Friend,
Roland
More Lifestyles
Home© Hackwriters 2000-2003
all rights reserved
