unique visitors since July 27, 2005

« Oh, Give Me a Homo | Main | Harding Har Har »

February 01, 2006


North Dallas Thirty

Um....Mal, I think this one needs a bit more clarification.

If Ms. Barber's point means that the church should judge others, that is an ironic misinterpretation of the passage and its context. In Chapter 4, Peter's basically saying, "You're going to take a lot of shit because you're a Christian. Don't worry about that; worry about God, because that's why you're living this way. They're giving you crap because they don't know about or choose not to believe in the judgment of God. You know better -- so act accordingly and focus on being right with God."

However, I can't really discern that that's her point. I could just as easily read it as saying, "Don't worry about what pop culture idolizes; we KNOW why they're doing it. Worry about what YOU'RE doing first."

In short, I don't think there's enough information there to make the inference you did.

Actually, that quote from Romans 1 that she uses is one of my favorites, because they always forget this part (v. 21 - 23):

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

What comes next is, "THEREFORE, yadda yadda yadda." In short, the problem is not that you're gay, it's that you rejected God. The passage is about setting priorities to put God first, and if you don't, you're on your own.


It was an easy inference for me to make. The woman has a long history of hating gays and passing judgment on us, either herself or by channeling what she believes to be the will of God. If she wants to defend herself, she is free to.

Yum Yum

I prefer the King James version myself (struggling to keep up with the English keeps me awake), but that too is one of my favorite passages.

Craig Ranapia

Well, wouldn't it have been nice if Barber had actually made her point instead of going all Delphic oracle on us? And perhaps she could take a hint from the Bible, and realise that God isn't anywhere near as obsessed with queers as Ms. Barber and her fellow far-right Christianists.

Anyway, Barber fell foul of my three strikes law for punditry in less that a week. If I can accurately predict from the headline exactly what Pundit X. or Blogger Y. is going to say in three consecutive pieces you're off my reading list. Does wonders for my blood pressure, Mal.


Craig, Mal's point is that Barber brutalizes the bible she claims to cherish to push her bigotry. People from my parents' church, which is quite conservative and evangelical, don't spout that nonsense. They take a moral stand ("we disagree with the morality of such an action"), but they certainly don't pass judgement, or exclude me from anything when I visit.

The broader point is that MoRawn is a foul little person who enjoys feeling superior to people who are not like her. Hmm, much like many 'mos I know, now that I think of it. Ironic!

North Dallas Thirty

It was an easy inference for me to make. The woman has a long history of hating gays and passing judgment on us, either herself or by channeling what she believes to be the will of God. If she wants to defend herself, she is free to.

I'll just remind you that another synonym for "inference", as used in that context, is "judgment".

North Dallas Thirty

Well, wouldn't it have been nice if Barber had actually made her point instead of going all Delphic oracle on us?

Another way of phrasing that.....wouldn't it have been nice if she'd actually said what I concluded she said?

Craig Ranapia


I think we're drifting towards an argument that doesn't need to happen. If Barber is going to post links without context - and to paraphrase the old joke about rabbis, if you get two Christians in a room and read them a passage from the Bible, they'll come up with three interpetations each - it's a little rich to complain that she is being misinterpreted.

I'd actually like Barber to speak for herself, not confusing Biblical citations with an argument. You know, much like you did.

Oh, and Barber has just updated with her usual chorus of "poor, poor pitiful me". I sent her a polite e-mail - using the contact link she provided - suggesting that she amplify what point she was trying to make with that citation. I hope it didn't get written off as "vulgar" and "intolerant" "hate mail". BTW, isn't it one of the small ironies of life that the most viperous people have the thinnest skins when the karma begins to kick in?

North Dallas Thirty

Her reason for posting a cryptic statement is quite clear in her rejoinder, Craig:

Posts like this do it every time. And I count it all joy! As I mentioned the other day, whenever I blog about homosexuality — and in this case quoted the Bible and skipped the usual “offensive” commentary — it brings out the worst in “tolerant” purveyors of what my God calls perversion.

All this comes from the fact that she knows full well that she can push gay peoples' buttons by simply quoting passages from the Bible, simply by virtue of who she is. She also knows that gay people have a knee-jerk reaction when it could even be inferred that Brokeback Mountain is being criticized.

So she posts a news item about Brokeback, a quote from the Bible about homosexuality, and a "Delphic oracle" phrase -- and whammo, people start calling her the "Baroness of Biogtry, the Doyenne of Discrimination, the Valkyrie of Vituperation", and other things far worse than that, just based on what they thought she meant. Meanwhile, she can just sit back and say, "Gee, look at all the hate mail I get just for quoting the Bible! Even worse, see how they're railing against 'judging others', but are automatically doing it themselves?"

Meanwhile, when you react as I did, what's she going to say? "You were wrong for quoting the Bible"? Or maybe, "You were wrong to caution Mal not to judge me based on insufficient data"?

There is a reason I a) don't get excited over cryptic statements and b) don't hesitate to speak up when I see someone who is being mistreated, regardless of how vile I happen to think they are, and it's in Proverbs 25: 21 - 22:

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the LORD will reward you.

Now THAT'S what I call practical Scripture.


Oh, come on, NDT. I never attack unless I feel attacked first, and MoRawn has made that her stock in trade. That "turn the other cheek" bullshit wore thin with me long ago.

North Dallas Thirty

The key phrase in that is "feel attacked", Mal.

You see, I usually wait until I AM attacked to respond.

Craig Ranapia


Well, fair points well made in a civil and respectful manner. If Ms. Barber decided to outsource her blog to you it might be worth reading again.

On reflection, I think you're probably right. If so, she's hardly the only blogger - or MSM pundit or politician, for that matter - who engages in what I call bait-and-switch trolling. There's just a part of me that wishes she'd do it without using The Bible.

North Dallas Thirty

And I couldn't agree with you more, Craig.

What she is doing is wrong. She is trying to be provocative, and she is using the Bible to do it, which is an enormous perversion of Scripture.

But in my mind, that doesn't qualify as an attack. It qualifies as being an ass.


I think its hillarious hw such acomplete book such as the bible gets twisted to meet any needs of the individual reciting it for their purpose. I know ther eare various translations such as the King James, and such, but what some people find is amazing.
Raymond B


Hey NDT.
Nice comment.
I left you message on that other site. I hope you got it;)


As any good biblicalist knows, the Holy Bible can be made to represent almost any point of view. Southern Baptists swore it upheld slavery, and they're right. It also opposes slavery; well, with the Bible, one can always have it one's way.

I read the original post, which quotes extensively from the Prologue of the Pauline epistle to the Romans. I always enjoy it when bigots stop their reading at the end of the chapter, which is just the beginning of Paul's point. The first few verses of Romans 2 is what ALL of Romans 1 is about. But that relatedness is always ignored by the biblicalists. As usual, they find a tree, but miss the forest.

I really don't take biblicalists seriously, because they really don't take their sacred book seriously. If they did, they wouldn't quote selectively one verse, but miss the whole chapter. And ne'er have I found an exception to this fact.

Christianity in the right hands can be a cool religion, but in the wrong hands, it doesn't look much different from religious fanatics of any other stripe, e.g., Muslims, Jews, etc. It's the fanatics that ruin a good thing.


Anyone else other than me wanna tie her down, tape her eyelids open and make her watch Falcon videos?



The Bible can't be reduced either to Ms Lashawn's verse or, frankly, to the "Judge not" verse. It's a library of books, written over a period of about 1000 years. Christian scholars and believers have lived with its complexity for 2000 years, Jews even longer. No single verse answers, please. Either "Luv!" or "Judgement!". This sounds like Unitarians vs Baptists, a shouting match which is, well, just a shouting match.

Downtown Lad

Why is ND30 always defending the bigots? I find it odd.


Downtown Lad: We noticed the same thing. NDT is an apologist for all the wrong things all the time. Either s/he's extremely conflicted (it happens), confused (me, too, at times), or bored, looking for a fiesty exchange. For some reason, methinks it's all of the above.

North Dallas Thirty

For a very simple reason, DTL; gays will not, on my watch, travel down the path that leads to becoming Bizarro versions of LaShawn Barber.

The express lane to that is when you become unwilling to speak up when people are treated unfairly because you find their opinions repugnant.


Except, NDT, that MoRawn and her ilk choose not to live in the reality-based world with the rest of us.

It would make about as much sense if I were to quote Harry Potter books to find fault with her. She is a Bizarro World unto herself.

North Dallas Thirty

Except, Mal, if you notice.....she says exactly the same thing about you.

I think I've made the principled reason for why this isn't worth the effort. But this time I'll throw in the practical one.

Now, you two can carry out a tag-team death match over whose version of reality will reign supreme and whose will be banished forever, with lots of sniping back and forth, blogwars, and demonstrations on both sides. But I'll tell you this much.....based on the results of last years' and this years' flurry of constitutional amendments permanently depriving gays of rights, girlfriend's kicking your white ass.

That's because, Mal, while voters don't particularly care for LaShawn and her histrionics, given the choice between a black heterosexual woman who waves her Bible way wide and a bunch of gays who call people who believe in the Bible "superstitious" and "outside the reality-based world", they'll take her every day and twice on Sundays.

Now, if gays could somehow figure out a way to agree with Ms. Barber on some issues, point out in a reasonable fashion where she oversteps her bounds, and do so without calling her names, it leaves her squarely in charge of the irrational side of the field. But right now, Ms. Barber is making excellent use of the Rove Doctrine, which states that the more you can exploit your opponents' hot buttons, the more you can push them into extremism, which makes you look more moderate.

Again, Mal, as I pointed out above, the whole reason she made that post was to bait people into responding. She depends on the fact that gays inevitably cannot let a post that involves Scripture and Brokeback Mountain slide, no matter what. She knows full well that gays MUST oppose her and that we will rationalize namecalling and all sorts of nasty emails, even on the flimsy grounds of "she might have meant something disparaging, so I'm hitting her back". And if you don't....well, Stephen and DTL nicely demonstrated the control mechanism for dealing with recalcitrants and reluctants above.

In short, Mal, opposing LaShawn Barber is now a matter of principle, not a matter of the position she actually takes or what she actually says. Problem is, as we cowboys put it.....a lot of wrecks begin as a matter of principle.

Craig Ranapia

And for the record, even "bigots" get it right some of the time. I can't say I agree with Bob Barr on much - and certainly didn't weep crocodile tears when he lost his primary in 2002. But his testimony to the Senate Judiciary OPPOSING the FMA (at http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1234&wit_id=2874 ) isn't any less valid just because I wouldn't hit the brakes if he fell in front of my car.


I found this quote today. And I couldn't agree more.

"The Bible has done nothing as effectively in its entire existence than to provide a nice duck blind for mentally ill people to get behind and fire at the people they subjectively deem as inappropriate, wrong and/or different."

The comments to this entry are closed.