If Jesus was alive today, I really wonder whether he would be unpleasantly amused or just jumping for joy at some of the current politics in American, particularly those that have been so intentionally exacted by what some might view as over-zealous parishioners of various Christian faiths and perhaps even more specifically those moral proponents who purport their own culturally defined brand of “family values” with an ardent and widely-accepted belief that everyone should either conform or be politically denied their inalienable rights as citizens of this free and equal American society.  I for one, fully respect and support these passionate Christians’ God-given inalienable right to believe and practice their own brand of religion in any manner they so choose.  It is, after all the acknowledged Constitutional right of every American to freely choose his own religion with its own particular beliefs without any intentional interference by or through any other individual, municipal government and most importantly that seat of ominous power located in Washington, D.C.  I find two rather serious faults with too many of these religious fundamentalists’ often-times persistent and ardent imposition that stray from judicious and prudent wisdom.  The first and most unpleasant in my estimation is the simplistic presumption of righteousness and the sometimes rather personally offensive manner in which they act without reasonable regard to one of the most fundamental political ideals behind the founding of this miraculously conceived government that was supposed to be so very dramatically different from our European cousins.  That major difference was our granted individual freedoms to become whatever we so desire in this life, and for any of us to accomplish this individualism in our own individual manner so long as we don’t aim to or unintentionally exclude our neighbors from the same given inalienable freedoms, whether that is in the nature of our expressions whether they be verbal or non-verbal, our beliefs of a spiritual or civil nature, or the manner in which we each choose to live our own private lives.  A true democracy, as was initially intended and broadly defined by our founding Fathers, was not projected to being an all-encompassing majority that rules, dictates and imposes its own will over any minority.  Quite the contrary, our Bill of Rights was specifically designed to be applied to each and every individual American citizen without exclusions so that our government would never exercise any power that would intentionally superimpose itself or the will of some supposed majority in the name of some erroneous ‘moral’ authority as defined by any religion; in other words, I have the right to eat pork.  One of the most ardent demonstrations of this founding ideal was the proposition of Thomas Jefferson that a truly liberal (liberal arts) education could not be successfully achieved where there existed some “moral authority” imposed by a religious belief system, and that most specifically included Christians.  Thomas Jefferson within the confines of his reflective wisdom founded the University of Virginia albeit with a great deal of social and political difficulty and moral opposition simply because he had refused to have the University of Virginia be sponsored by any given religious denomination of which there were countless and even generous offers.  As a result of his ardent position, the University of Virginia became the ‘first’ university in America that was NOT founded under the moral auspices of any church.  The most dramatic example of just how educationally offensive a church authority might be in the exercise of its own particular belief system is demonstrated in the still raging controversy in the eyes of some Christians over the various propositions of creation.  Reality has no place for mythology.

            I am very confident that even Thomas Jefferson, in the light of modern-day knowledge and scientific realities, would be amusingly appalled at the present state of affairs where so many individuals still so blindly hold fast to these embellished religious mythologies that have been so totally challenged and dispelled by modern discoveries and science, dramatically beginning with those once considered far-reaching theories of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) and that were eventually so dramatically confirmed by Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) with his masterful and most timely invention and use of the telescope.  For Galileo's courageous intellectual and scientific contribution to the knowledge of his day, that we earthlings were NOT the center of the universe and therefore most likely not the singular focus of some miraculous creation, he was hastily placed under 'house arrest' by the head of the Catholic Church.  That most atrocious and maligned decree was only lifted in the last decade of the Twentieth Century, some three hundred and fifty years after his death.  Reality has not changed in its essence from the very first time that man began to explore his ever-expanding universe; the difficulty lies with man's stubborn inability to successfully and realistically integrate his antiquated mythologies with the realities of hard science.  The beginning of any age of mankind is appropriately marked not with just the simple discovery of some previously undiscovered reality that had always existed, but most appropriately when the tangible fruits of that new revelation or discovery have actually entered the mainstream of mankind's day-to-day world.  From our own Western cultural perspective, the singular event that might well mark the beginning of this most imminent great Age of Reality could possibly be singularly focused on Pope John Paul II, when on October 31, 1992, the Vatican officially 'revisited' its initial indictment of Galileo's confirmation of Copernicus' take on our universe's revolving heavenly bodies and their actual relationship to our own tiny earth.  Galileo was naturally vindicated of his heresy and most quietly so without any further ado.

Mankind and his innate noble spirit, has for too long, been held captive of these archaic and notoriously oppressive Western religions.  Their often-times radical and despotic leaders all too frequently subjugate the very loving nature in mankind that every individual man and woman should be equally and universally heir to.  Jefferson expressed it very succinctly in those most infamous words; “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  Oh, that all of us actually enjoyed the noble intentions of this profound yet most appropriate axiom of personal joy!

Instead of the reality of what Jesus taught, we find more and more Christians using that word “hate” and in such strange and contradictory mannerism such as, “Hate the sin; love the sinner.”  The real problem, however, lies within those narrow definitions of sin; to some Christians it is a sin for women to wear lipstick or for anyone to drive a piece of machinery.  Of even greater disparity is the practice of handling vipers.  The very simple truth of the matter is that sin is just the absence of love.  To demonstrate this simple axiom, Jesus had but one supreme commandment and that was “to love one another (your neighbors without any stated exclusions!), as you love yourself.  Upon this one commandment rests the entirety of the law and the prophets.”  Just ONE commandment; isn’t that so very simple!  So you tell me, where is the word hate in all of this?  And, if this one extraordinary commandment is actually the foundation for the “entirety” of the law, then you tell me where it is a violation of this one commandment for two women or two men to “love one another” in any manner they see fit?  There are no stated rules as to whom, what color, what sex, what nationality was to be applied to the definition of “neighbor” except in Jewish Law and tradition as so stated in the “Old Testament.”  Actions speak louder than words and when it came to those with whom Jesus actually associated, there was no intended discrimination except his repeated suspicions of those notorious Sadducees and Pharisees of the Hebrew tradition.  I am confident that Jesus would rightfully identify such a pungent man as the not so Reverend Jerry Falwell as one of those Pharisees to be intentional avoided for his distasteful and irreverent pungencies; many of which he has had to publicly recant!  There in lies the age-old problem of the over-zealous Pharisee once again taking the “law” into his own self-proclaimed righteous hands for the unjustified condemnation of some particular group that he personally finds offensive.  I have absolutely no objections with his rooting out homosexuals from his own religious institution or even his own household as with his son.  He may rightfully speak for some Christian church, but he definitely does not speak for that loving man, Jesus.  It is unfortunate that so many faithful Christians so innocently confuse the teachings of Jesus with the various and contrite doctrines of various Christian churches.  There is absolutely no similarity at all.  These “Christian” beliefs that are purported to be based on the stated teachings of Jesus are actually the archaic remnants of the Roman Catholic Church that was essentially established in or about the year 325 under the political (not spiritual!) guidance and dictates of Constantine, the then supreme ruler of the Greco-Roman Empire.  Constantine had a serious problem at hand in that ninety percent (90%) of the population of his expansive empire were designated as slaves, and were this vast population ever to realize their own strength in numbers….  Need I say anymore?  In any case, this Greco-Roman sculptured “Christian” religion was specifically adopted by civil authority because it had already demonstrated its soothing effects on the common folks of that political tenuous era of unrest, as it had so effectively brought some minuscule joy into the unfortunate underlings of Hebrew society some three hundred years prior.  Christianity was simply seen as “a religion most likely suitable for then ignorant and suppressed masses’ and the Catholic Church most purposely placed at the very ideological center of its dogma the oppressive concept of “obedience” which would have most aptly served to keep that massive number of slaves “down on the farm.”  What ever happened to the idea of love being at the very center of Jesus’ proclamation of man’s salvation?  It never was intended to be a religion of personal spiritual freedom and adulation, and it has maintained its oppressive hold on Western society ever since its hideously political inception under the direction of Constantine.  Even Sigmund Freud in one of his thought-provoking treatises on society proclaimed, “…the worst thing that ever happened to Western culture was the advent of Christianity.”  Now, let’s be very clear here; I’m not assuming that what Jesus actually taught his impoverished and down-trodden Hebrew brethren had or has anything to do with the current teachings of most Christian churches.  Martin Luther had the same profound revelation when he first translated (NOT interpreted!) the gospels into his own native tongue.  He serendipitously discovered for himself that the ancient Catholic Church was far amiss from those singularly loving teachings of Jesus, and Luther even went so far as to authoritatively call the Pope, the most consummate of the antichrists.  Of course, he had to immediately go into hiding to avoid having his head removed, but unlike Galileo, I don’t believe the Catholic Church ever officially vindicated him of his perceived tyrannical heresy against the contradictory spiritual doctrines of the Catholic Church.

            Now, let’s explore the promised ‘truth’ that is actually the only articulated source of our salvation according to the recorded words of Jesus, in so far as we might trust any of the surviving Gospels.  There was no specifically identifiable sub-culture of homosexuals in the days of Jesus’ earthly ministry; there were, however, those individuals like Mary Magdalene that lived outside the narrowly defined role of women and some of the Disciples that were not married according to Hebrew law and custom that were singled out for social criticism.  For that reason alone Jesus would have had no reason to address such a specific subject matter as gay marriage, but on the other hand the subject of marriage and the idea of some men living outside the heterosexual realm of Hebrew traditions were indeed specifically addressed.  On the roundabout subject of gay marriage there is specifically in the Book of Matthew some reference to marriage and “to whom the law applies” as well as “to whom the law does not apply.”  Not to take anything out of its original context, I will here copy the entire applicable passages:

Matthew, Chapter 19, verses….

3 ¶ The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for every man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:  and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them. Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth com­mit adultery.

10 ¶ His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them. All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

There are some translations that end these verses with, 12 ….And to them, the law does not apply.   The word eunuch was used in translation for an old word that had no modern counterpart that simply meant or referred to, “a man who is safe in the bedchamber of a woman.”  This was perhaps not the best choice of words; there simply wasn’t the modern vocabulary defining a homosexual who is equally “safe in the bedchamber of a woman.”  Now, one might have naturally assumed that Jesus was referring solely to that man who was made physically void of his gonads, but his having made specific reference to a man being so born of his mother or of so choosing, clearly indicates that the intention was consciously beyond the simple definition of the physical castration of a man; men simply aren’t born without the standard male equipment.  There were, clearly in the law, those stated tenets that dictated the specific expected behavior of a man that was assumed to be an ordinary heterosexual, and the law specifically defined what manner of sexual relationships were so unacceptable; prostitutes, mothers, sisters, sister-in-laws, neighbor’s wife, women who are with issue, divorced women and anybody with a flat nose.  In addition to all of these prohibitions aimed at the Hebrew male it is admittedly said in the book of Leviticus, Chapter 18, verse 22 “Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.”  The use of the word, “abomination” was not limited just to those men who were to “not lie with mankind.”  This specific prohibition is often quoted as an indictment specifically against the sexual behavior of homosexuals even though it was initially and contextually intended to being just one of many sexual prohibitions intended for the heterosexual Hebrew male only.  As Jesus so stated, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.”  These laws were certainly NOT addressed or dictated to the “eunuchs” of the day nor any other Hebrew man that was without a wife for whatever reason including his being so born from his mother’s womb.  The Jewish Pharisees had interpreted these laws to simply mean that ALL Hebrew men should have a wife and bear children, but along with a number of specific restrictions as so stated.  It was some of Jesus’ own disciples who were noticeably without wives that had questioned Jesus as to whether they were in violation of these Hebrew laws.  It can also be found this hideous indictment of homosexual behavior in other portions of the New Testament, but nowhere do you ever find this amongst the actual words attributed to Jesus.  Paul, though he is sometimes referred to as a Pharisee, could not be seriously considered as the voice of God, nor should he have any authority to actually contradict the words of Jesus.