Danielle (daniellec) wrote in nesecession,

this was posted on black_cats

"Dear President Bush,

Congratulations on your election victory and for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said, 'in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man and a woman.' I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination...end of debate.

However, I do need some advice from you regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how best to follow them.

1) Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Leviticus 15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Leviticus 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7) Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?

9) I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10) My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend.) He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Leviticus 24:10-16.) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus 20:14.)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging."
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
Three Texas surgeons were arguing as to which had the greatest skill. The first began: "Three years ago, I reattached seven fingers on a pianist. He went on to give a recital for the Queen of England."
The second replied: "That's nothing. I attended a man in a car accident. All his arms and legs were severed from his body. Two years after I reattached them, he won three gold medals for field events in the Olympics."
The third said: "A few years back, I attended to a cowboy. He was high on cocaine and alcohol when he rode his horse head-on into a Santa Fe freight train traveling at 100 miles per hour. All I had to work with was the horse's ass and a ten gallon hat. Last year he became president of the United States.
The only weakness in the joke is that Bush is said to be afraid of horses. His ranch in Crawford has not a single horse.

Throughout the history of human culture, horses have often been symbols of truth, honour, and nobility, and in some cases are depicted as being able to look into the soul and see the truth of a man where others around cannot. The depiction of this in The Ring is a particularly dramatic example, and in fact is based directly on the identical Japanese depiction in the original story. The famous and chilling play "Equus" is also built around these themes.

Much has been written on the psychology of Bush, and it may be reasonable to suspect that his alleged fear of horses, if true, arises from a much more salient fear of people seeing his true soul.
I thought folks here would be pleased to know that this piece in its original form as the now-famous "Dear Dr. Laura" letter, first circulated around this time about five or six years ago, was written by a close friend of mine who prefers to remain anonymous about it at this point, but I am allowed to say that he is a New England radio personality who has done a lot of material like this both on the air and in print, and is well known in his hometown area for acidic letters to the paper of similar style.

He had first circulated it to a few friends, as sort of a tossed-off assemblage based on arguments he had read emerging from debates surrounding Dr. Laura when she first emerged as a radio personality and then as, to use his term, "a right-wing nutjob." He didn't even sign his name to it, and so even we didn't know that it was his work, although it was his style. Some of us forwarded it to a few others, also without attribution, and more or less forgot about it, until it started coming back to us months later, having made the rounds of the Internet and refusing to die. We later learned that it had briefly made the Top 10 of the Web.

One day, while reading a magazine, I called him up, to inform him that I had just read portions of his original work, unmodified, in "TV Guide," where his words had been put in the mouth of Martin Sheen on "The West Wing." He was flattered, of course, but again, customarily nervous about it as always. He likes to get his jabs in, but fame does not become him, especially as getting one's jabs in often means getting slapped back by people who prefer primitive tactics over sharp words (or, more likely, have no other choice), and so he has not even used his real name on the radio in some 20 years.

Anyway, I thought people here would like to know that this piece originates in New England.
i live in connecticut.
The writer is indeed from Connecticut. Though it's (statistically) unlikely that you would have ever known or met him, it's possible you might have heard him on the air at some point.

The current New Haven Advocate has a story somewhat tangentially related to this, centring on gay marriage, but more generally about the apparent reality that as low key as Connecticut culture is, the general political atmosphere is very progressive. Not in a Northern California-style "Hey, dude, hug a tree!" kind of way, but more in a Maine-style "Hey, let's not stoop to kicking each other in the teeth, okay?" kind of way.

It was fascinating, for example, that the gay marriage issue, even while raging in nearly Mass., wasn't even on the political radar in Conn. until the KofC rode into town to rally the troops. But according to the article, even with all their massive cash infusion and masterful politicking, it seems there aren't really enough troops in Conn. willing and able to make their dreams happen.

At the end of the day, Conn. just wants peace and quiet, and a better future for everyone. That means taxation to pay for education, health and infrastructure, as the foundation for a healthy and stable republic -- true traditional conservative American values.

While so-called red-staters talk the talk, US Census and other figures indicate that it is blue-staters who actually walk the walk. That's one of the big differences here between 'them' and 'us': We believe in deeds, not words.