I had warmed to my subject and was eager for more ancient do nots. Instead

I found some lovely dos. Check Leviticus 24:16. "And he that blasphemeth

the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation

shall certainly stone him..."

Here are a couple more good

ones from Deuteronomy. In Deut. 13:8 we read: "If thy brother, the

son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom,

or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying.

Let us go and serve other gods ... thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand

shall be first upon him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people."

Then there's Deut 17:2 through

5: "If there be found among you within any of thy gates which the

Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in

the sight of the Lord thy God in transgressing his covenant ... then shalt

thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked

thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them

with stones, till thy die."

My blood had started to boil

food, condemning modern gardeners and the content of my clothing, when

I should be out finding and stoning blasphemers. I did stay away from

that Jesus stuff one book over: way too much love, way too much tolerance,

way too little use for those comfortably established.

No siree, it's the Tora for

me. Just pick a target and find your verse. After that you can find a

New Testament phrase to voice your love, while holding dear your Old Testament

to act on your prejudice.

But this epiphany led to another:

we don't live in a theocracy. Our freedom, and form of government are

not a natural outgrowth of the Bible. The Bible took its form sometime

after the conveniently converted Constantine called the Christian leaders

together on Nicosia in 325 a.d. to formalize Christian dogma. The intervening

1,462 years witnessed all manner of despotism and very little human respect.

A biblical theocracy was assembled

and Anabaptists.

When the great men of America

came together in 1787 to amend the Articles of Confederation, and ended

up discarding them in favor of an untried Federal Republic, they chose

to not mention religion or any of its manifestations. In 1791, at the

command of the states, they included Amendment 1: "Congress shall

make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof ..." What we do find in the debate, as recorded

from the power of the state; that, yes, we must give up some rights to

live in a society, but we reserve all those not specifically taken away,

to the people.

So I'm not sure where the idea

of biblical prohibitions comes into play in our law. Failing to keep the

Sabbath is also a biblical no-no, but it's also nobody else's business.

If some material or legal advantage accrues to the contract of marriage,

how can we, under the 14th Amendment, deny two people the right to engage

in that contract? This, of course is untested legal ground, but certainly

food for thought.

The right wing is going through

their usual knee-jerk reaction to any immediate offence, calling for a

constitutional amendment to define marriage. While we're at it we ought

to include the mandatory contents of the dry martini. As for whether God

is a raging maniacal killer or a benevolent despot, I'm sure I'll find

out someday. In the meantime the passions of religion are a poor mix with

the necessity of reasoned governance.

Timothy J. Parker

Peachtree City