Saturday, March 08, 2008

The Dirty Jew Amendment

Here’s a scenario for you:

Jewish people do not believe in Christ as the Messiah, the Lord, the son of God. They choose a lifestyle that is innately sinful and immoral. Therefore, they should not be able to marry or to adopt children, because they will then pass on their immorality to later generations and ultimately promote the Jew Agenda. Those people choose their lifestyle and deserve what they get. They are sinful and against God.

Hollywood and the liberal Christians are just frothing at the mouth to allow the Jews to take over the US, infecting our Christian society with their sinful lifestyle mislabeled as holy, moral, religious or normal.

I propose a constitutional amendment – The Dirty Jew Amendment – in which we forbid Jews from marrying or adopting children. I am not proposing we discriminate against the Jews. I love the Jews. I just hate their lifestyle, their beliefs, their customs, their religion, and their culture.

We all know that there are people who profess Christ and believe the very scenario presented above. They can use biblical scriptures to make their point. Is the above scenario discriminatory? Or am I being intolerant and discriminatory by even mentioning the subject?

Silly conservatives are confused about the word “discrimination.” Discrimination comes in the form of action: rules and laws. To forbid someone of color to use a water fountain is discrimination. Not hiring a person based on their religion is discrimination. To pay a female less money to do the same job as a male is discrimination. Making a law that prevents blacks and whites from marrying is discrimination, even if that law is based on one’s understanding of his or her religion. The same, of course, applies to homosexuality.

In the US, we actively discriminate against bigamists. In fact, we prosecute men who have multiple wives – a belief that is rooted in [gasp] morality. Neither do we allow adults to have sex with or marry children. Unless you are from Arkansas and have parental permission. So we all do it, unless of course we have no problems with bigamy or child molestation. I’ve written before about my views on bigamy and turtle-on-donkey sex. I could care less. I do, however, have no problems discriminating against adults who want to sex up our children. But I know that having such a law is discrimination.

For that matter, I have no problems with people believing that homosexuality or Judaism is wrong or sinful or whatever. Believe what you wish. I tolerate that, but I also reserve the right to disagree. Personally, I do not think it is my place to judge where any person is headed after death. I don’t ask the question because I don’t think I know. I also do not go around making laws against those that I personally find repugnant or immoral unless it involves hurting others. But I try not to hate them either. I’m not so sure that we can hate and love at the same time. We can tolerate and love, but hate is some kind of powerful emotion.

By the way, the Bible also talks about not eating meat and cheese together, and a whole host of other observances. I don’t see the anti-homosexual Christians chomping at the bit to make laws against those who eat a cheeseburger. They just want to punish the homosexuals. And make no mistake, these proposed “laws” or “amendments” are based on punishment and not on love.

For more background on the catalyst that spurred this post click the following links:

He Hates Homosexuality, Not Homosexuals
Vote Yes on the Litle Anti-Fornication Law


Jeremy D. Young said...

As I alluded to in your related post about homosexuality, there are two primary places where the storms rage here.

Government definitions and regulation of Marriage, and government definitions and regulation of education.

Where many people get it wrong is that you cannot improve our culture or an individual's morality through laws.

You can't fix bigotry with hate crime legislation either.

Laws must protect the Life, Liberty, and Property of all individuals unless it has been proven through due process that some of it must be forfeit.

There should be no legislation that protects or punishes any group of people. The laws should protect individuals against discrimination based upon any membership or definition of a group.

admin said...


Our point was obviously lost on you. We do not hate Jewish people. We were using sarcasm to make a point about the anti-gay marriage amendment that is supported by so many.

These same people would never support anti-jewish legislation, but it is essentially the same thing and we were attempting to draw the parallel. I bet you stopped reading the article because you thought it was serious. I hope you go back and re-read the entire article and see it for what it is: a denouncement of discriminatory legislation.

Thanks for stopping by.

The Management, Fat Jack Inc.

Sky Girl said...

Jeffrey missed the point, didn't he.

Great post. Love it. I'm going to post a link to it now.

Jason said...

So you think being gay is a choice like following Judaism is a choice? ;)

"By the way, the Bible also talks about not eating meat and cheese together, and a whole host of other observances. I don’t see the anti-homosexual Christians chomping at the bit to make laws against those who eat a cheeseburger. They just want to punish the homosexuals. And make no mistake, these proposed “laws” or “amendments” are based on punishment and not on love."

First, you're quoting Old Testament and completely ignoring the New Testament. If you want to ignore scripture in your personal life that's your right but it's really unfair to distort Scripture and pretend that a law is in effect in Christianity that's not just to attack some people with whom you disagree.

You take an action and you meld it into a person just so you can attack those who believe that the action is not acceptable. That's a great way to try and label and smear opposition but it's not really conducive to having production discussions on the issue.

rundeep said...

I read these comments, and I wonder about how this world will ever get anywhere, but ANYWAY.

Here are my 2 cents about having the law against child molestation being discrimination. Nope. Not buying it. You are violating the rights of another person, in this case, a child. Anti-child molestation laws seem about as discriminatory as anti-murder laws.

I see that as fundamentally different than your example about bigamy. I mean, if every ADULT involved is ok with the situation, no one's rights are being violated. I do wonder about things like health care. I mean, if you have seven wives, should your employer have to extend all those benefits? And is EACH marriage a tax deduction? If so, how do I become a Mormon? But I digress.

Discrimination implies prejudicial treatment not based on action. Now, I realise that you could go back to the argument "I like homosexuals, it is just homosexuality that is an abomination in the eyes of the (one true, mine and not yours) Lord. But then, I would return to consenting ADULT argument. Child molestation seems fundamentally different. And I am not a fundamentalist.

Hope you guys are well. Brian

Nate said...

Agree with rundeep that child molestation is always wrong because children cannot consent, but I don't think that's what Jack is saying. I can see how that could be inferred, though, in paragraph 6.

Regarding scripture, as I understand it, the anti-gay stuff is in the old testament too, right alongside the anti-cheeseburger stuff. There's nothing in the new testament admonishing homosexuality. So comparing the two is relevant.

Of course, there are those of us who believe that a storybook written 2000 years ago shouldn't be used as a template for modern social policies. But that's another topic altogether.

JL said...

Jason wrote:

"First, you're quoting Old Testament and completely ignoring the New Testament."

I do not claim to be a bible scholar, but I seem to remember that in the New Testament Jesus mentioned divorce and how it was unacceptable except for cases of marital unfaithfulness. It seems odd to me that people who so vehemently condemn homosexuality (and homosexual marriage) do not seem as motivated to restrict divorce, even though it is explicitly mentioned by Christ (as homosexuality is not). No one proposes an amendment saying that divorced people cannot remarry. I have yet to see pastors denounce the "activist judges" who permit divorce for "irreconcilable differences" or "alienation of affection." Why is this? As I said, I am not a bible scholar, so perhaps I am missing something in the scriptures.

Anonymous said...

God is the same Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow and Jesus is God, God is Jesus. Jesus lived before the New Testament was written. He was and is the New Testament. He did not change the stances on sin, but instead amplified them by changing the act to the thought of the act as being as condemning. Look and it is the same act such as lust. The prostitute was not told that her profession was now lawful. She was told to go sin no more. Remember the New Testament was written in koine Greek and and there was specific references in that language with regards to homosexuality that was not truly translated into the KJV or other versions for that matter. When Jesus spoke of Love the Greek word reflected agape - a spiritual love not eros (erotic) the more physical engagement. Specific verses will be given when I have a little more time.

Another thought when Matthew and Mark say to love thy neighbor as thyself did they say agape or eros. Check it out. In English it says the same; however, in the Greek it could mean the difference of a spiritual love or should we share a little erotic self-indulgence together. Jesus, if you believe in him, could not sin so I believe the love he gave to Mary, his mother, disciples was agape. Those he exhorted to sin no more probably practiced eros. Check it out.