Praise Jesus
 

Story

I mean, its explicit in the Bible that sodomy is wrong, right? Forget about all that 'everyone is a sinner and all sins are equal' business. Religion IS ruining this guy's life. Can you honestly say that oral sex would be considered a FELONY if the Bible didn't mention it? Preposterous.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

Government =! religion.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
Government =! religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh. I am told all the time that our country was founded on Christianity, and that our laws were primarily founded on the Judeo-Christian belief system. And then we have the specific law in question, one that makes sodomy a felony while sex is only a misdemeanor. Had he simply ravaged her vagina and impregnated her, he'd be skipping around college right now.

Government != religion? Are you sure of that?

Re: Praise Jesus
 

"Barker thinks five years is fair for receiving oral sex from a schoolmate."

And again, having vaginal sex with the same schoolmate is a misdemeanor.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
Huh. I am told all the time that our country was founded on Christianity

[/ QUOTE ]

You were told wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Government != religion? Are you sure of that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certain.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Huh. I am told all the time that our country was founded on Christianity

[/ QUOTE ]

You were told wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Government != religion? Are you sure of that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certain.

[/ QUOTE ]

You left out the middle part. You are going to tell me that the law which says that sex with <3 years difference is a misdemeanor but oral sex/sodomy <3 years difference is a felony is NOT based on the Bible? What could it possibly be based on then? What rational explanation could you give for a law like this?

Re: Praise Jesus
 

It's an assinine law to be sure, but I fail to see what any of this story has to do with religion. Are you talking about when his mom asks, "What have I done to God to deserve this?".


If not, there are some incredibly stupid laws still on the books in most states (albeit most not enforced). Things like you can't comb your hair on Sundays type of thing. If I was one of those resourceful guys, I'd provide a linky.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are going to tell me that the law which says that sex with <3 years difference is a misdemeanor but oral sex/sodomy <3 years difference is a felony is NOT based on the Bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can point to the passage that recommends this I will concede your point.

[ QUOTE ]
What rational explanation could you give for a law like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

None whatsoever. And when you have a monopoly on the use of force you don't need rational explanations for anything.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's an assinine law to be sure, but I fail to see what any of this story has to do with religion. Are you talking about when his mom asks, "What have I done to God to deserve this?".


If not, there are some incredibly stupid laws still on the books in most states (albeit most not enforced). Things like you can't comb your hair on Sundays type of thing. If I was one of those resourceful guys, I'd provide a linky.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has to do with religion because of Sodom. There is a taboo on sodomy, which includes oral, manual and anal sex, and this taboo was enacted into law because of the God-fearing folk of Georgia. There is no other reason for the disparity in penalties. Sex for procreation = good, sex for fun = bad.

And bills...of course I didn't say this was based on a CORRECT interpretation of the Bible. Simply that it clearly is based on one.

People ask all of the time, sure, this heinous act was perpetrated nominally for religious reasons, but wouldn't it have occurred anyway, even without religion? The answer in this case is a firm no.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

What part of the Bible says that sex with <3 years difference should be considered a misdemeaner but oral sex/sodomy with <3 years difference should be considered a felony in the 21st century? I'd like to read up on it, as I don't recall ever coming across that in the Bible.

Maybe you think a statement from the Bible that implies "sodomy is wrong" should be applied equally to all people and all generations? This doesn't seem very useful to me, and this story illustrates why. Some people grossly misapply and misuse ancient scripture. It doesn't seem very constructive to me to blame a book when people do this.

I also don't know how you can infer this young man is in jail specifically because of Jesus (referring to your thread title). I mean, I understand it's probably convenient and all to blame religion for every little thing people do that is wrong. But it's pretty clearly inaccurate and incorrect to do so, no matter how much we all want to. I mean, I do know how you feel though. I had knee surgery recently and was on crutches, and this one time when I attended church those freaking Christians held the door for me and even offered up their seat so that I could be more comfortable. Damn those Christians and Jesus with their "treat others as you would want to be treated" mantra. Praise Jesus (and by that I mean har, har stupid religious people)! Later I stubbed my toe on a chair and I cursed the Bible because that's the only logical thing to do.

As a side note, I really hated how this article was written. It placed the blame for this horrendous situation in the hands of stupid legislation, stupid actions by people, and stupid actions by the government. It doesn't once ever mention the Bible or religion. Thus the article is unsatisfactory. Don't we all know by now that if something bad happens, the first thing we should look to blame is the Bible and Christianity?

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is a taboo on sodomy, which includes oral, manual and anal sex

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always considered sodomy limited to anal sex but that's not my area of expertise so you could easily be right.

The key point is that without government it would be a non-issue. Atheist/naturalist lawmakers can and do use their power for unsavory purposes as well.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
And bills...of course I didn't say this was based on a CORRECT interpretation of the Bible. Simply that it clearly is based on one.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a person interprets something which results in harm, regardless of whether the interpretation is correct or not, we should banish that thing and everything to do with it? In this case you seem to be implying that because someone interpreted the Bible in such a way that causes harm, Jesus is bad and all religion is bad.

So, by this same line of reasoning if someone interprets Nietzche as saying "it is okay to kill other people" (regardless of whether the interpretation is correct or not -- this part is important in your argument), we should banish the teachings of Nietzche? It also follows that we should banish all philosophy, as your post seemed to imply that all religion is bad because of one person's interpretation of one specific religious document.

This is awesome.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And bills...of course I didn't say this was based on a CORRECT interpretation of the Bible. Simply that it clearly is based on one.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a person interprets something which results in harm, regardless of whether the interpretation is correct or not, we should banish that thing and everything to do with it? In this case you seem to be implying that because someone interpreted the Bible in such a way that causes harm, Jesus is bad and all religion is bad.

So, by this same line of reasoning if someone interprets Nietzche as saying "it is okay to kill other people" (regardless of whether the interpretation is correct or not -- this part is important in your argument), we should banish the teachings of Nietzche? It also follows that we should banish all philosophy, as your post seemed to imply that all religion is bad because of one person's interpretation of one specific religious document.

This is awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't see how this is flawed? Especially since my entire point is that this was an example where basing laws and practices on a personal, biased and EXTREMELY UNLIKELY TO BE CORRECT intepretation of scripture (by the way, this is the only type of interpretation that exists) led to disastrous results.

The issue isn't whether the lawmakers correctly interpreted scripture or not. Especially when the phrase 'correctly interpreted scripture' is almost a non-sequitur. The point is, these lawmakers were allowed to make an absurdly unfair law simply because they happened to understand that God hates sodomites, and quite a lot. Actually, the reason they were able to make the law was probably because their constituents agreed with them....but for the same reason. They were not required to support their reasoning because it was an obvious, religious viewpoint. Sodomy is bad, sex for pleasure is bad, no need to justify it.

This case was obviously an extreme example of this type of thinking run amok. Of course this doesn't normally happen. And of course something like this COULD happen in a secular society....I guess. The point is simply that this happened because of the sheltering of beliefs that are rooted in faith or religion.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And bills...of course I didn't say this was based on a CORRECT interpretation of the Bible. Simply that it clearly is based on one.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a person interprets something which results in harm, regardless of whether the interpretation is correct or not, we should banish that thing and everything to do with it? In this case you seem to be implying that because someone interpreted the Bible in such a way that causes harm, Jesus is bad and all religion is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

he didn't say that

That ANY interpretation of the Bible is considered when making laws is ridiculous.

this case is very disturbing to me

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
This has to do with religion because of Sodom. There is a taboo on sodomy, which includes oral, manual and anal sex, and this taboo was enacted into law because of the God-fearing folk of Georgia. There is no other reason for the disparity in penalties. Sex for procreation = good, sex for fun = bad.

And bills...of course I didn't say this was based on a CORRECT interpretation of the Bible. Simply that it clearly is based on one.

People ask all of the time, sure, this heinous act was perpetrated nominally for religious reasons, but wouldn't it have occurred anyway, even without religion? The answer in this case is a firm no.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were no religion would the laws ever end up so out of sync? Seems very unlikely, but not impossible. Historically throughout europe sodomy laws were directly religion based. Is it reasonable to expect that christian myths are behind the Georgia laws?

Apparently not, judged by some posters, those laws were created by native americans who never heard of sodom and adopted unquestioningly by the later citizens of georgia, or some such.
cheeesh, I'm embarrassed for my species at times.

luckyme

Re: Praise Jesus
 

Irony of ironies, I clicked on the video and it started with an anti-marijuana commercial.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]

I've always considered sodomy limited to anal sex but that's not my area of expertise so you could easily be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, in Georgia:

16-6-2, Sodomy

(a) A person commits the offense of sodomy when he or she performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
EXTREMELY UNLIKELY TO BE CORRECT intepretation of scripture (by the way, this is the only type of interpretation that exists)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Especially when the phrase 'correctly interpreted scripture' is almost a non-sequitur.

[/ QUOTE ]

These statements don't make any sense. Some interpretations are clearly more correct than others. Or are you saying that from the phrase "Thou shalt not kill" one can interpret this to mean "Killing is good stuff" and this is equally valid as the alternative interpretation "killing is bad"? Do you really think that the authors of ancient works really had no intent behind their writings? That they just chose their words at random? Clearly, not every interpretation is a valid one. And some interpretations are very likely to be correct or valid, despite your claims to the contrary.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, these lawmakers were allowed to make an absurdly unfair law simply because they happened to understand that God hates sodomites, and quite a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sodomites refers to residents of the city of Sodom. The phrase was not altered to mean anal sex (or whatever context the Georgia law uses it as) until much later. It was COINED From the Biblical story. The story itself does not mean "thou shalt throw a 17 year old in jail for 10 years for having oral sex in the 21st century". It is ludicrous to have such a law in this day and age based on that Biblical story, this much I agree with. This, again, is the fault of the legislators and that idiot prosecutor. It has nothing to do with the Bible, religion, and especially Jesus (I have NO idea how the thread title "Praise Jesus" could relate to this story in any way).

The problem is allowing lawmakers to interpret scripture as they see fit and apply it to today's age however they want. It is NOT a problem with religion itself, it is a problem with how some people use and/or follow religion. It has nothing to do with Jesus at all, as your thread title suggests. It has nothing to do with the Bible itself either. Unless you want to claim that simply interpreting something in a ridiculous way means that the original object of interpretation is automatically "bad" and is the thing at fault. If this is the case, then we better get rid of all philosophy because I'm pretty sure someone has used a bad interpretation of some philospher at some point in history [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img].

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently not, judged by some posters, those laws were created by native americans who never heard of sodom and adopted unquestioningly by the later citizens of georgia, or some such.
cheeesh, I'm embarrassed for my species at times.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't seem to find where anyone in the thread said this. Reading for comprehension is fun AND even useful sometimes!

The chain of events likely went something like this. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was written and later incorporated into the Bible. Because the residents of Sodom (Sodomites) were said to commit "unspeakable unholy acts and sinful behavior" (paraphrase), the word Sodomy was later coined to mean extremely sinful behavior. Somewhere along the line it got morphed into meaning simply anal sex (and perhaps oral in the case of the Georgia law). Some legislator or group of legislators thought the more modern definition of Sodomy was "wrong", and it should even be wrong in a legal sense. Thus he/they passed a law to make sodomy illegal. Apparently the higher-ups in Georgia responsible for the law and not overturning it are all idiots, and now we have this boy in jail for a 10 year sentence. Which is why bills and I are making the claim it is the fault of the members of the government who allowed this sentence to take place, and are allowing it to continue to take place.

So yeah, the lawmakers probably had heard of Sodom at some point. Which is why the word "Sodomy" appears in the law. And then it follows that since the word Sodomy has its origins in a Biblical story, that Jesus and the Bible are at fault for this young man being in jail in the year 2007 (or something like that?) [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]. After all, context isn't important when you want to attack religion, is it?

Re: Praise Jesus
 

There's zero doubt in my mind that sodomy laws are on the books because people think it's immoral. Why else would there be such laws regarding consensual sexual behavior?

We can quibble about what certain passages in the bible say, and possible misinterpretations of scripture. But the bottom line is that the idea of anal/oral sex as immoral/unnatural has been part of most Christian religious teachings. It is naive to think religious belief has nothing to do with these laws existing in the first place. I cannot think of a possible rational reason for anti-sodomy laws that is not based on religious beliefs.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
So yeah, the lawmakers probably had heard of Sodom at some point. Which is why the word "Sodomy" appears in the law. And then it follows that since the word Sodomy has its origins in a Biblical story, that Jesus and the Bible are at fault for this young man being in jail in the year 2007 (or something like that?) . After all, context isn't important when you want to attack religion, is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying religious belief has nothing to do with the idea that anal sex and homosexuality are "sinful" in the first place?

I don't really care whether the Sodomites were actually having anal sex or not. The point is that anal sex would not be illegal without its implied immorality, and this comes directly from church teachings about sexuality.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's zero doubt in my mind that sodomy laws are on the books because people think it's immoral. Why else would there be such laws regarding consensual sexual behavior?

We can quibble about what certain passages in the bible say, and possible misinterpretations of scripture. But the bottom line is that the idea of anal/oral sex as immoral/unnatural has been part of most Christian religious teachings. It is naive to think religious belief has nothing to do with these laws existing in the first place. I cannot think of a possible rational reason for anti-sodomy laws that is not based on religious beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
but unless you believe in god the bible is a representation of man's law. The same sort of bigot who thought it was bad then think it bad now.

chez

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
but unless you believe in god the bible is a representation of man's law. The same sort of bigot who thought it was bad then think it bad now.

chez


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The problem is people have invented a divine authority to legitimize their bigotry.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but unless you believe in god the bible is a representation of man's law. The same sort of bigot who thought it was bad then think it bad now.

chez


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The problem is people have invented a divine authority to legitimize their bigotry.

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly but non-religous bigots don't seem to have a much of a problem coming up with non-divine authority.

Religon doesn't help but I think its a mistake to believe that bigoted laws wouldn't exist in much the same way without religon.

chez

Re: Praise Jesus
 

The Nazarene and his father have a lot to answer for. Especially Georgia.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]

The key point is that without government it would be a non-issue. Atheist/naturalist lawmakers can and do use their power for unsavory purposes as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Total atrocity being committed against an innocent kid, brought on by ignorantly strict interpretations of an antiquated text force-fed unjustly into law...and instead of just ACKNOWLEDGING that zealous Christianity in government is FAILING this kid, you regurgitate more nonsense about how we shouldn't have a government and assert that atheist/naturalist lawmakers (how many of them do we actually have?) do bad things too (which, even if you're right, what does it have to do with this situation?).

I remember now why I stopped posting in Politics.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
Possibly but non-religous bigots don't seem to have a much of a problem coming up with non-divine authority.

Religon doesn't help but I think its a mistake to believe that bigoted laws wouldn't exist in much the same way without religon.

[/ QUOTE ]

chez, I think the difference is in what we experience on these forums and as commented in the
From Tom Shales comment on the Friends of God film
[ QUOTE ]
Meantime, the Christians we see in this film are unyielding in the rightness of their ideas (i.e., evolution and abortion are wrong, "Jesus is the only way" and America is a Christian nation), and if someone challenges them, they simply say God has told them the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

If religion isn't involved you have a shot at a rational challenge on both the logic and factual content of their claims. When the bigotry is hidden behind religion you merely run into extended version of 'god is in my heart not yours and god said so'.

It seems a meaningful difference to me, but ..??

luckyme

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]

The problem is allowing lawmakers to interpret scripture as they see fit and apply it to today's age however they want. It is NOT a problem with religion itself, it is a problem with how some people use and/or follow religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY. And the completely unjustified level of protection from scrutiny that religious belief has in this country facilitated this.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The key point is that without government it would be a non-issue. Atheist/naturalist lawmakers can and do use their power for unsavory purposes as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Total atrocity being committed against an innocent kid, brought on by ignorantly strict interpretations of an antiquated text force-fed unjustly into law...and instead of just ACKNOWLEDGING that zealous Christianity in government is FAILING this kid, you regurgitate more nonsense about how we shouldn't have a government and assert that atheist/naturalist lawmakers (how many of them do we actually have?) do bad things too (which, even if you're right, what does it have to do with this situation?).

I remember now why I stopped posting in Politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I am the one who posted this, and I am as saddened by it as anyone, but the kid is not innocent. He committed crimes, and his actions after committing those crimes have played a part in putting him where he is now. He chose to go to trial rather than plea (still several years in prison) and become a registered sex offender for the rest of his life, because he wanted to be able to see his little sister.

The outrage isn't because the kid is innocent though. The outrage is because he was put into this absurd situation because, when the law was being discussed and passed long ago, it didn't even need to be defended...because it simply could not have been. The legislators all knew that sodomy was just self-evidently evil and wrong and FAR worse than vaginal sex.

The actual issue is definitely more of a political one. The DA's office could give him a lesser sentence RIGHT NOW if they wanted to, and the reason they do not do this is NOT for religious reasons. Its all a political clusterf*ck at this point. But it should never have come to this.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Possibly but non-religous bigots don't seem to have a much of a problem coming up with non-divine authority.

Religon doesn't help but I think its a mistake to believe that bigoted laws wouldn't exist in much the same way without religon.

[/ QUOTE ]

chez, I think the difference is in what we experience on these forums and as commented in the
From Tom Shales comment on the Friends of God film
[ QUOTE ]
Meantime, the Christians we see in this film are unyielding in the rightness of their ideas (i.e., evolution and abortion are wrong, "Jesus is the only way" and America is a Christian nation), and if someone challenges them, they simply say God has told them the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

If religion isn't involved you have a shot at a rational challenge on both the logic and factual content of their claims. When the bigotry is hidden behind religion you merely run into extended version of 'god is in my heart not yours and god said so'.

It seems a meaningful difference to me, but ..??

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is. Bigotry for secular reasons has no protection in public discourse.

Re: Praise Jesus
 

I'm bumping this.

I've encountered a lot of stances that go something like "yea I feel for him but he should have known the law." I think this stance is absurd. I respond by saying that this stance doesn't take into account the impracticality of being expected to know all the laws of your state. It also seems inconsistent, but maybe that's not the right word. If they "feel for him," that represents that they sympathize with something about the case (I assume the injustice) but in the next breath say that the law that administered the injustice should be known and followed. It doesn't make sense.

When I say something along those lines, I get the "well we have laws for a reason" or "so we're picking and choosing which laws to follow now huh?" lines. Am I talking with retards, or am I the one not getting it?

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm bumping this.

I've encountered a lot of stances that go something like "yea I feel for him but he should have known the law." I think this stance is absurd. I respond by saying that this stance doesn't take into account the impracticality of being expected to know all the laws of your state. It also seems inconsistent, but maybe that's not the right word. If they "feel for him," that represents that they sympathize with something about the case (I assume the injustice) but in the next breath say that the law that administered the injustice should be known and followed. It doesn't make sense.

When I say something along those lines, I get the "well we have laws for a reason" or "so we're picking and choosing which laws to follow now huh?" lines. Am I talking with retards, or am I the one not getting it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're talking with retards. There's a lot of them about.
This kind of story makes me so disgusted and angry i can barely stand it. Don't know if this is the same video I saw, but my favorite part of the CNN version was the DA saying that he felt the sentence was too long, and he'd gladly cut it in half. As though 5 years for oral sex would be ok. Does this guy seriously not realize that HALF the children of GA would be in prison if this were evenly enforced?

Still, tip for the kids...if you videotape sex acts, try not to spread the tape around [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a taboo on sodomy, which includes oral, manual and anal sex

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always considered sodomy limited to anal sex but that's not my area of expertise so you could easily be right.

The key point is that without government it would be a non-issue. Atheist/naturalist lawmakers can and do use their power for unsavory purposes as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't my area of expertise, so can you please point to an atheist lawmaker?

Re: Praise Jesus
 

[ QUOTE ]
When I say something along those lines, I get the "well we have laws for a reason" or "so we're picking and choosing which laws to follow now huh?" lines. Am I talking with retards, or am I the one not getting it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this the whole point of democracy?

I vote "you're talking with retards". But if you want to keep trying to convince them, you could point out that this law was created for a reason and this isn't it (this law, by all accounts I've read was to prevent child molestation, which this is not)