My priest always called people "Deli Catholics" who pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe. Ironically, this sentiment led me down the path to enlightenment. As I got older, more and more things in the bible didn't make sense to me. I began to realize I couldn't be a Catholic if I didn't believe everything the same.

You cannot argue with these people using logic, even if (maybe especially if) you're quoting the Bible while doing so. It's just a wasted effort.

They're not doing it because they actually believe the bible, they're doing it because they personally dislike gays and they want justification from a "reputable" source to back them up. "See! God doesn't like gays either, it says so right here! So I simply feel the same way god does! Justified!"

They always resort to mass murder. They are uncivilised.

Amen. But like @2 says, logic might be a lost cause. If the bigots are too dense to realize that the love-thy-neighbor, judge-not stuff Jesus said supercedes the Old Testament bullshit, don't expect tolerance or compassion anytime soon.
The same can be said for Christians who can't see how the Attitude of Jesus overrules all the judgey things Paul said after the fact.

As a side note, I hope Dan serves pork and prawns at his debate dinner if the other guy is intent on bringing up Leviticus.

@3-Exactly.

I'm fond of telling bigoted Christians that they ought not blame their own prejudices on God, because that really pisses Her off.

@2: The Bible specifically tells them not to rely on logic, but to simply believe what they're told. So yes, lost cause. They believe logic will only lead them astray.

@7, sackcloth and ashes are hell on a naked glans.

@4 History agrees with you, Vince. They always resort to mass murder. Christian love in action.

Where's Mitt Romney on the massacre of gays? Too frightened to speak up? You see the real problem, don't you? The extremists run the Republicans. The real media needs to start demanding answers.

But but but. . . where the hell ARE the other Xtian leaders? Why don't they speak out? Has anyone in a position of Xtian leadership made a statement in respond to the steaming piles of hatred turds?

Where are they? Engaging with blunt hatred and decrying it is what they need to do. Why don't they?

@14, Father Favabean and Pastor Pattypan are, um, busy in the garden.

(Reverend Radicchio is secretly watching.)

Will gays be allowed to marry in the death camps? What's the punishmant for sex in the death camps? Double death camps?

Hey, at least you have to admit they have integrity when it comes to their holy book...the book says kill these sinners, and they want to kill those sinners.

@9: Oh, they're allowed to be disgusting hateful hypocrites. They're just not allowed to claim moral superiority while doing so.
@13: Nice strawman, as usual. There aren't actually people who are innately polyamorous. (That is, there aren't people who are sexually and romantically attracted only to multiple people, not to individuals.)

They need a name. How about "Jesus Memorial Death Camp"? Has a nice ring to it.

@7,

I'm guessing early Christians were having a hard time selling that to the Greeks and Romans, not to mention the Gauls and Germanic tribes.

@ 14,

Sadly, it seems you don't know who John Shore is. You can learn more @ http://johnshore.com. There is even a chance that his response on SLLOTD is still on the most commented list.

Tis true that no progressive Christian has a teevee show, though. But that doesn't mean that they are just exclaiming "Oh My!" either. Personally I was engaging these bullies long before Dan created his Order of Flying Monkeys. Dan can even vouch for being CC in on some of those discussions of mine.

Anyway, I deeply regret that you can't hear any of our voices.

@ rob,

It is well known fact that Rev. Radicchio hyphenated her name to Raddicchio-Roquette. She and her lovely wife share a deep fondness for alliteration and EE Cumimings poetry.

Take care.

I'm a little confused as to why the good Rabbi thinks "secularists" might piously quote the Bible.

I don't think that's a thing that happens. When we quote the Bible, we do it sarcastically.

@15, are you actually aware that the things you say are factually untrue, and you're just being your usual trolly self, or are you in fact a moron?

The hatemongers are given a public platform by the media because it makes for good ratings, whipping up people's emotions and all.

This irresponsible rabble rousing will lead unfortunately to another catastrophe like the Oklahoma bombing. They were goaded on by right wing radio hacks who then swore afterwards they had nothing to do with the hatred they encouraged.

The media needs to grow up and realize there are too many ignorants willing to carry out the message these people spew.

Reminds me of the new A Softer World: "Every time someone tells me that I should be tolerant of their belief that I should be dead, I put a quarter in the knife jar."

(Let's try that comment again:)

Reminds me of the new A Softer World: "Every time someone tells me that I should be tolerant of their belief that I should be dead, I put a quarter in the knife jar."

Ha, Kim @26, fie on me for assuming that Rev. Radicchio was (a) male and (b) single. Thanks for bringing diversity to my little word salad; that would hardly be taboo (-leh).

@35: "I said so, therefore you're wrong."
Cute.

Tony and Bryan and Gary won't be doing any nay-saying about this trend, rest assured. Because their money comes from the wacko sorts of people who follow these vile preachers. They will do nothing to alienate these idiots, because these idiots are the ones who fund their "ministries."

Didn't Dan predict this a few years ago? I feel like I read him saying something along the lines of you can only spread hate about gays so long before they start thinking, hey, if gays are that bad and destroying America, why don't we kill them?

It is disappointing--if predictable--that nobody on the right is calling out the haters. Thankfully their are those like Shore and Romain who are giving voice to faiths that oppose bigotry.

I am hoping, though, that this vocal nutjob fringe is a sign of progress. Now that queer is essentially normalized these people feel that their little world has been intruded upon and are pissed now that the queers are gettin' all upitty. However, us upitty queers aren't going anywhere...get used to it.

@36:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_snss6u0-WRI/Sk…

Don't bother engaging with the cowardly unregistered trolls, they just try to drag you down to their level of discourse...

...and the rabbi just decides to ignore a few thousand years. It happens.

Look, any Christian who quotes Leviticus is a hypocrite. But there *are* Jews who don't mix fabrics or eat shellfish or... and no, they wouldn't approve of stoning to death a child. Because those Jews have a whole 'nother set of texts that the Christians don't even usually know about. There's this concept in Judaism of an oral addition to the Torah (Old Testament) that explains what's meant to be taken literally, versus what's not, and adds a very strenuous court system to actually arrive at any sort of death sentence as proscribed in the Torah. Such that when it says "stone to death"it means "really, really bad offense," not KILL.

There are ways of understanding Leviticus' anti-gay stuff without delegitimizing the Torah, but very, very few sources actually try. Which is really frustrating for someone who *doesn't* eat pork, like me. I know it's an easier argument that works for the majority-Christian population, to simply say "you eat pork, you can ignore the don't lie with a man" stuff too, but that's not an argument that I can use with *my* friends. It would be really, really nice for a properly reasoned Jewish argument to gain more exposure, but so far that hasn't been the case.

@41: Part of the issue is that Christians never quote Leviticus, but rather a translation of it. And they definitely cherry-pick translations that fit with what they want church doctrine to be, and then try and claim "it's right there in Scripture!" to support their ideology.