November 08, 2004

MSNBC liberal insists that America wants return to Levitical laws

David Shuster, commentator for MSNBC's Hardball and blogger for Hardball online opines this morning that conservatives, or as Shuster implies, neo-conservatives, long for a return to the Levitical laws of the Old Testament -- including a return to slavery.

This is typical of the mindset of liberals -- when they don't get their way, use the Bible to drub conservatives over the head.

While the Bible does suggest homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), The Bible also says in Leviticus 25:44 that we may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations; Exodus 35:2 says that my neighbor who works on the Sabbath should be put to death; Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed; Lev. 11:6-9 states that touching a dead pig makes us unclean (Are you ready for some football?) and Lev. 19:19 forbids us from planting two different crops in the same field or wearing garments made of two different kinds of threat. The penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 suggests we stone people to death.

Maybe some Americans want to return to the days of slavery, devout observance to the Sabbath, long hair, all cotton clothes, and stoning people...

Shuster completely neglects the fact that the Levitical laws of the Old Testament -- man's laws as defined by the time -- were superceded by the grace of Jesus Christ as noted in the New Testament.


Only use what works for showing conservatives as knuckle-dragging neanderthals, and blow off the rest.

Then what? I bet Shuster would love to see conservatives in a leper colony -- after all, liberals online have already come up with multiple ways to redraw the borders of the nations on the North American continent so as they can easily secede from the remainder of both the United States and Canada.

Posted by mhking at November 8, 2004 08:43 AM

The OT laws are still valid as a rule, Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. But there is a distintion from the moral law and the Mosaic law. The moral law still being in effect, the Mosaic was executed by the state which made no distintion between church and state. Since we have a secular government which I (as a Christian) am grateful for, the moral law should still guide us, but not be legislated unless by popular means - democratically in other words. Also note that slave owners in Biblical times were directed (by the Jewish law) to treat their servants with dignity, but Westerners get a skewed idea of what slavery is due to the abuse of our forefathers.

Posted by: Michael Gallaugher at November 8, 2004 01:11 PM

Also what the writer is failing to tell you is that although most of the laws of Moses are not in the New Testament, the case against homosexuality IS in the New Testament. Liberals love to point out the Law of Moses but ignore the NTteachings about homosexuality. It doesn't fit their arguement and it points out their sin in Jesus's own words.

Posted by: Becky Bonner at November 8, 2004 02:26 PM

Neocons aren't typically socially conservative at all. I just don't know what this guy's talking about. Nicholas Kristof is even anti-Christian, and he's basically the founder of neo-conservatism.

Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at November 20, 2004 01:30 PM

Kristol, sorry.

Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at November 20, 2004 01:30 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?