I compared the 5 dominant (by number of adherents) religions in an earlier post.WORLDVIEWS All dealt with lust in their own way, but only one celebrated lust–secular humanism. Some recent information has me leaning towards classifying lust as a religion itself, and perhaps the most hypocritical of all. MY COMMENTS ARE BELOW, CAPITALIZED. Starting the hypocrisy parade are some quotes from Chai Feldblum, a commissioner with the U.S. EEOC:
- When sexual orientation and religious freedom come into conflict, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner”;
- “Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect the ability of LGBT people to live in the world”;
- “For all my sympathy for the evangelical Christian couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe the ‘zero sum’ nature of the game inevitably comes into play. And in making the decision in this zero sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people.”
- “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people.”
HERE IS WHAT I MEAN BY HYPOCRITICAL: WHO CLAIMS “DISCRIMINATION” THE LOUDEST AND MOST VIOLENTLY WHENEVER THEY DON’T GET THEIR WAY? LGBT’S! YET A POWERFUL, UNACCOUNTABLE EEOC BUREAUCRAT–WHO IS APPOINTED TO ENFORCE THE LAWS SECURING LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE LARGEST NUMBER OF CITIZENS–JUSTIFIES TRAMPLING THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE MANY IN ORDER TO GRANT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE (what her terms “liberty” and “dignity” really mean in practice) TO A TINY GROUP WHOSE REAL AGENDA IS REPLACEMENT OF HEALTHY GOD ORDAINED SEXUALITY WITH “ANYTHING GOES.” SHE WAS RAISED IN AN ORTHODOX JEWISH HOME BY HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS, BUT HAS REPUDIATED BELIEF IN GOD. WHY? WELL, NEITHER JEWISH NOR CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE VALIDATE LGBT’S, SO IN HER PERSONAL LIFE “SEXUAL LIBERTY” (as in libertine) HAS TRUMPED FAITH–NOW SHE’S IN A POSITION TO SPREAD HER “GOSPEL.”
Did I say “anything goes?” Here, from Huffington Post, 3/9/2018 man dolphin sex: Malcolm Brenner justifies sex with a dolphin.
In 1970, when Brenner was a college sophomore, he was given open access to the now-defunct theme park Floridaland near Sarasota to take photos for a book about the dolphin show. There, he claims, Dolly the dolphin began courting him.Malcolm Brenner was the feature of a documentary called “Dolphin Lover,” wherein Brenner was “courted” by a dolphin named Dolly he eventually has sex with. “She would rub her genital slit against me,” he says in the doc. “And if I tried to push her away, she would get very angry with me. One time, when she wanted to masturbate on my foot and I wouldn’t let her, she threw herself on top of me and pushed me down to the 12-foot bottom of the pool.” Brenner is a thinking person’s zoophile. He draws a careful distinction between zoophiles and mere bestialists, noting in “Dolphin Lover” that the latter “might just have sex with an animal and walk away,” while the former “is someone who has tender or caring emotions for their animal partner.” HE IS SERIOUS, AND IS BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY HUFFINGTON POST!
Brenner was asked Does it bother you at all that people only seem to find this acceptable when it’s fantasy or an allegory? And do you think there will be a day when that changes? “Of course it bothers me. I don’t like people threatening to go Lorena Bobbitt on me because I made love with a dolphin. Will it change? Who knows? I would like to think that society will become less religious, because the prohibitions in Leviticus are the only conceivable basis for any laws against bestiality. I can’t see that my boffing my dog has any effect on society, good or ill, as long as I’m not hurting her or abusing her. Laws against animal cruelty ought to be sufficient without criminalizing the act of interspecies sex, which organizations like PETA are trying to do.”
SO, PROHIBITIONS IN LEVITICUS “THE ONLY CONCEIVABLE BASIS FOR LAWS AGAINST BESTIALITY?” REALLY? NO OTHER BASIS? AS IF HE CARES ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF HIS ACTIONS OR ATTITUDES ON SOCIETY. WHY SHOULD ANYONE CARE? HE HAS ALSO COMPARED THE “PREJUDICE” AGAINST ANIMAL-HUMAN SEX TO INTERRACIAL SEX. HOW RIDICULOUS–OBJECTIONS TO SEX BETWEEN THE RACES WAS PREJUDICE, AGAINST A MERE DIFFERENCE IN PIGMENT, BUT HE IS SAYING THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PEOPLE AND ANIMALS IS NO MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN A DIFFERENCE IN HUMAN PIGMENTATION! CHAI FELDBLUM IS SAYING THAT PIGMENTATION IS NO DIFFERENT–FOR PURPOSES OF ENFORCING “RIGHTS” OF ONE GROUP OVER ANOTHER–THAN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, WHICH IS VOLITIONAL. THAT’S “REASON” IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD.
GIVEN AN ABSENCE OF BELIEF IN GOD WHO MADE MAN IN HIS IMAGE, THERE IS NO ULTIMATE BASIS FOR CARING ABOUT HOW YOUR ACTIONS AFFECT OTHERS! THE BIBLE SAYS GOD MADE HUMAN SEXUALITY FOR: PROCREATION, COMPANIONSHIP AND PLEASURE–WITHIN THE BONDS OF MAN-WOMAN MARRIAGE. THE RELIGION OF LUST SAYS “ANYTHING GOES BETWEEN MAN AND BEAST.” BETWEEN THOSE EXTREMES LIES…..NOTHING REALLY. BECAUSE DEPARTURE FROM THE FORMER INEVITABLY LEADS DOWN THE ROAD TO THE LATTER!