In headline news entitled "Book of hate : Beauty queen cites Bible for gay death", they allege that "Another US beauty queen has caused controversy with an anti-gay rant - this time citing Bible passages that call for death to homosexuals".
"Rant", "death", "controversy" - it all sounds so exciting.
But look at the facts?
The article cites the controversial statement :
"In Leviticus it says, 'if man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination — they shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them'," she was quoted as saying.
"If (God) says that having sex with someone of the same gender is going to bring death upon you, that's a pretty stern warning ... and he knows more than we do about life."
Um, that's a rant?
Quoting a Bible verse and politely suggesting it might have validity, is a rant?
In fact, the article goes on to say the beauty queen in question has many homosexual friends, and hey, doesn't actually harbour hatred towards them! Well, how about that!
So let's get this straight : quoting a Bible verse and politely suggesting it might still be valid is "ranting", whilst wording headlines to imply a peace-loving person is malicious, angry and hateful, is legitimate?
Two idiotic assumptions underpin the article :
Idiotic assumption 1) It is impossible to believe that a crime should ever be punishable by death, without personally hating everyone who commits the crime.
Ah - no.
Take "Dead Man Walking".
It's possible to forgive, and love criminals, and yet still recognise that the best thing for society as a whole is for people to know that certain crimes are punished by death.
Or let's take their assumption a little bit further : why stop at the arbitrary point they do? Why not assume it's impossible to believe that a crime should be punishable at all, without personally hating everyone who commits the crime?
Crikey, c'mon! Are we supposed to believe that no punishment should ever occur for any crime? Don't we recognise that sometimes punishing a crime is the most loving thing to do, whether for the criminal, or at least for society as a whole?
And if they agree that punishment in general can be meted without hate, then why arbitrarily say the death penalty cannot be meted without hate?
I mean, some people get a "life sentence" - life in jail. That's gotta be pretty bad. Is that really any much better than just getting it over with and letting the criminal cease living?
But if you're gonna say life sentences are likewise evil, well, how is a life sentence of 40 years that much different to say a 35 year prison term?
And if we axe 35 year prison terms, what about 32 year prison terms?
And if 32, what about 30?
And if 30, what about 25?
And ultimately, you realise it's just a matter of degree.
You can't make a conclusive argument that punishment of some kind is permissible, but the death penalty is not - it's just a matter of degree. Where you draw the line will differ from where the next guy draws the line. So who's right?
In other words, Channel Nine News heaps ridicule on a woman who suggests that the death penalty might still apply, but the only absolutely-logically-consistent alternative is to suggest that no punishment should ever occur.
Oh sure, you can mount a somewhat logical argument in favour of drawing the punishment line here or there, but when you see the next guy with a somewhat logical argument draw the same line in a different place, you gotta realise your own case ain't so watertight after all.
But who cares about watertight logic and facts when you can accuse a Bible-believer of hatred? C'mon! Gotta use every chance we can to bash these people who actually believe that the Bible might have some use in the 21st century!
Idiotic assumption 2) Homosexuality is beyond question.
Ah, no.
What kind of race are we if anything becomes "beyond question"?
Surely to retain our self-ascribed title of "homo sapien" (sapien = wise), we must recognise the importance of continuing to allow everything to be questioned.
What's wrong with her raising the possibility that there might be inherent problems with the homosexual lifestyle?
Ask an ex-homosexual like Sy Rogers. It ain't all rosy.
And if there are inherent problems, who's to say they aren't severe problems?
So severe, perhaps, that whilst the individual homosexuals should be loved, their homosexual actions should be curtailed, perhaps even with severe force?
What's wrong with raising the question?
What's wrong with believing it yourself, as obviously this beauty queen is inclined to do?
What if she happens to have seen some of the studies that show the darker side of homosexuality, and concludes that the modern adulation of the practice is insane?
Or is there a deeper issue?
Maybe Channel Nine News believes that no-one should force their moral standards onto anyone else.
But hang on a moment - isn't Channel Nine News berating this beauty queen for believing that homosexuality is bad, and so bad that the death penalty should be considered?
Isn't Channel Nine News forcing its moral standard of not questionning anyone's moral standards?
I mean, if you really believe that the most moral thing to do is not express your moral views to anyone else, lest you be "forcing your morals on them", then at least be consistent enough to live by your own morals and not try to tell me to not talk about my morals!
Channel Nine News, wake up, you idiot. Either don't express your moral views by telling others what to do, or else do allow others to express their moral views.
In short, Channel Nine News is a propaganda machine, not an objective news service, if this is the kind of stuff it publishes.
-
Q&A :
Q : Where is "Book of hate" in the headline?
A : On the ninemsn.com.au homepage, the link to the article was called "book of hate". UPDATE : And now another link on the ninemsn.com.au homepage is called "Hateful beauty : Starlet quotes Bible for gay death". They're obsessed, against the facts, with calling the woman "hateful". That's ranting, if you ask me!
UPDATE : Ironically, one of the news articles sharing the headlines was entitled "Mum who gassed kids jailed for life". Would you know it, Channel Nine seems to think life sentence in prison is ok for some crimes, but death penalty is not for others. So basically, Channel Nine is trying to force ITS morality on US. So why the self-righteous chest-beating when it finds other people also expressing their views on morality?
(update continued) : And note that the beauty queen was ASKED for her opinion on homosexuality - she didn't publish it uninvited as Channel Nine is doing all the time. So in reality, Channel Nine "News" is the one that is constantly ranting and forcing its morality on others, whilst this nice little girl from the US was just politely answering some questions. Shame, Nine News, shame. From now on you can be called the Channel Nine Propaganda Service.
