Wingnut Heads

Judith Slaying Holofernes

Artemisia Gentileschi

Every day the rightwingnutters push the envelope of credibility and tolerance one (or more) step further with irrational and bigoted and racist responses to irrational acts, as Dr. Dawg notes of reactions in the rightosphere to the terrible murder of Tim McLean on a Greyhound bus on Wednesday night.  The alleged murderer, Vincent Li seems to be of Chinese descent.  Oh no, he beheaded his victim, he must be a Muslim!

May I remind any rightnut who happens to pass by here that beheading has an “honourable” history in the Judaeo-Christian world and in the West:

Judith beheaded Holofernes:

The story of Judith slaying the Assyrian general has been a theme for some of the Western world’s most famous Italian painters, including Michelangelo Caravaggio, Artemesia Gentileschi and Donatello.

Biblical hero, David, beheaded that big, nasty bully, Goliath:

Armed with a slingshot, five stones, and a belief in God, David advances toward a dismissive Goliath, and hits him between the eyes with a stone. As Goliath falls, David draws out the Philistine warrior’s own sword and beheads him. When the Philistines see their once-invincible warrior decapitated, they panic and flee. David carries Goliath’s head triumphantly to King Saul’s court in Jerusalem and keeps the sword as a spoil of war.

A Michelangelo fresco of David slaying Goliath adorns the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican. Other artworks include Caravaggio’s painting of David holding Goliath’s deathly pale head by his hair while the Philistine warrior’s expression is frozen in a terrifying scream.

The New Testament features the head of John the Baptist on a platter:

Queen Herodias had first been married to Herod’s brother, and John had condemned her new marriage as incestuous. Herodias’ daughter, Salome, dances for King Herod, who is so pleased with the performance that he promises to grant the girl anything she wishes. Salome, at her mother’s urging, asks for the head of John the Baptist on a silver platter. Herod is upset, but a promise is a promise. The incident has been immortalized in paintings and plays by artists ranging from Caravaggio to Titian to Botticelli to Oscar Wilde.

That good old Muslim, William Shakespeare, immortalized one famous beheading in Richard III.  Then, of course, there was that most self-absorbed of all beheaders, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I contributed her fair share to the making of people headless.  King Charles I and Marie Antoinette are also famous victims of the human prediliction for separating people from their thoughts.

This is not a specifically Muslim “tradition”.  In fact, it may have been a faster, less painful and more humane method of execution than that currently used for state executions in the United States of America.  Check your own backyard, wingnutters, before going off about the “barbarians”.  You never know, “they” might be you.

As Lamont Cranston said, famously, “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!”

Crucifixion was most common in ancient Rome. Although it has never been legal in the United States, it is worth noting that a CIA interrogator killed Manadel al-Jamadi in Abu Ghraib Prison in 2003 by crucifixion.

here ya go

Homophobe Papal Spokesman

News of the Vatican’s attempt to set the Anglican Lambeth Conference back a few decades (centuries?):

Homosexuality is a disordered behaviour that must be condemned, a Vatican official said yesterday.

Walter Cardinal Kasper made the remarks during an address at the Lambeth conference, the once-a-decade gathering of the world’s Anglican bishops in Canterbury.

Kasper, who is president of the pontifical council for promoting christian unity, reminded delegates of the catechism of the Roman Catholic church on homosexuality: “This teaching is founded in the Old and New Testament and the fidelity to scripture and to Apostolic tradition is absolute.”

Quoting from a key document on Anglican and Catholic relations he said: “Homosexuality is a disordered behaviour. The activity must be condemned; the traditional approach to homosexuality is comprehensive … A clear declaration about this theme must come from the Anglican Communion.”

Such a statement would “greatly strengthen the possibility” of the two churches giving common witness regarding human sexuality, something that was “sorely needed in the world of today”.

Kasper was saddened that dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church had been seriously compromised over the issues of women’s ordination and homosexuality. These developments had also caused the Communion to enter into a period of dispute, he observed.

“Many of you are troubled, deeply so, by the threat of fragmentation. In such a scenario, who will our dialogue partner be? How can we appropriately and honestly engage in conversations with those who share Catholic perspectives on the points currently in dispute, and who disagree with some developments within the Anglican Communion or particular provinces?”

The decision to allow the ordination of women in 28 Anglican provinces implied a turning away from the common position of all churches of the first millennium, he said.

The Catholic perspective on the Anglican Communion was that it was moving a “considerable distance closer” to Protestant churches of the 16th century.

Kasper’s comments are one in a series of Catholic carefully worded expressions of dismay to have been aired at the conference.

Three biblical same-sex relationships:

Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies:

Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that “Ruth clave onto her.” (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as “clave” is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: “ Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (KJV)  

“Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me.” (NIV)

 

This book was probably included in the Hebrew Scriptures because King David was one of the descendents of Ruth. Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship.

[…]

In modern English, this might be written: “Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children” That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan’s homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal’s heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.

[…]

2 Samuel 1:26

“I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.”

In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David’s only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomena. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.

[…]

Daniel and Ashpenaz

[…]

Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of Daniel and Ashpenaz as totally non-sexual. It is inconceivable that God would allow a famous prophet of Israel to be a homosexual.

Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v’rachamim The most common translation of chesed is “mercy”. V’rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: “mercy” and “physical love”. It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz “showed mercy and mercy.” A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz showed mercy and engaged in physical love” with Daniel. Of course, this would be unacceptable to later translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to “tender love” would appear to be the closest to the truth. One might question whether Daniel and Ashpenaz could sexually consummate their relationship. They were both eunuchs. Apparently, when males are castrated after puberty, they still retain sexual drive. It is interesting to note that no other romantic interest or sexual partner of Daniel was mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

See Religious Tolerance

And their related essay, “Eight Family/Marriage Types in the Bible“