Many pro-family groups are capitulating to the false notion that "gay rights," in fact, exist and therefore, are not maintaining their focus on addressing the truth that sodomy is a crime.
Source: Covenant News (via Ed Brayton)
Two critical premises are contained in this one sentence: first, there is no such thing as a "right" to be gay or engage in "sodomy" and, second, that "sodomy" is a "crime" and therefore must be treated as such. The importance of that second premise is easier to understand when we remember that there are no longer any enforceable civil statutes against sodomy; Jim Rudd is referring instead to a "crime" under religious laws allegedly written by his god. At the same time, though, he is also insisting that sodomy be punished by civil authorities.
Therefore, Jim Rudd is making an explicit call for the civil government and civil officials to enforce the laws of a religion which he, but not everyone, subscribes do. Jim Rudd wants the establishment of a repressive, totalitarian Christian theocracy in America and this essay helps explain why he thinks this would be justified. First, Jim Rudd argues that it isn't permissible for Christians to think that civil government and civil official do not need to enforce Christian religious standards:
Sodomy is a crime, and for Christians to publicly refer to this criminal activity as "gay" or as a "life style" is an anti-Biblical presupposition that suggests to the public, and to our civil officials, that the laws against sodomy can be ignored. To ignore what God says is to mock God, and for Christians to suggest that it is permissible for civil officials to ignore the Commandments of God is iniquity -- anomia -- Greek for lawlessness (Matt. 7:23). [emphasis added]
Then, Jim Rudd conveniently forgets that sodomy is an action which can be performed by heterosexuals as well as homosexuals:
Sodomite is the correct term for people who commit the crime of sodomy -- not homosexual or gay. ...Sodomy is not a light or transient crime. It is an abomination (Lev. 18:22). It is the culmination of man's apostasy and hostility toward God and His Church (Rom. 1:18-32).
Then again, maybe Rudd hasn't forgotten — maybe he knows that the primary definition in regular dictionaries and the secondary definition in legal dictionaries is "oral or anal sexual contact" between members of the same sex. How could he not be aware of this? This would mean that knows very well that his arguments will ultimately apply to heterosexuals who engage in sexual activity that falls under the "sodomy" label, but chooses to ignore this. Why? Maybe he wants his readers to focus on their hate of gays and be surprised later that they, too, may get caught in the theocratic net Rudd is trying to spread.
Regardless, I didn't know just how easy and enjoyable it could be for me to express "apostasy and hostility toward God and His Church" — talk about making fun activities even more fun!
Next, Jim Rudd makes it clear that civil officials who refuse to enforce Old Testament laws aren't legitimate civil officials at all, but criminals who must be removed from office because they put everyone in danger of God's Wrath:
For lawmakers and judges to approve of sodomy brings eternal damnation upon themselves (Rom. 13:2) and God's righteous judgment of death on the society as a whole (Gen. 19:24, II Pet. 2:6). Therefore, such lawmakers and judges are not only anti-Christian by approving of sodomy, they make the civil government a vile cesspool from which the abominations vomit out across the land. By displaying such a contempt for the administration of Justice, such civil officials are not only the source of the defilement (Lev.18:24-25), they are the criminals (Rom.1:32), and a hostile enemy authorizing the destruction of the society in which we live (Jude 7).
And what about people who engage in sodomy? They must be punished in the strongest way possible:
Not only should Christian men fight for the safety of their families by demanding that these civil officials repent, or resign from office immediately, Christians should be demanding the strongest laws and punishments against sodomy be put into effect so as to cleanse the pestilence from our society. (Lev. 20:13)
Sodomy is an "abomination" (Lev.18:22), and those who engage in sodomy are so vile that their very presence defiles the land (Lev. 18:22,25). Through the administration of Justice, God gives the civil officials the authority to prevent society, the land, from being defiled. The civil officials swing the sword to "...execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Rom. 13:4) -- and in this case sodomites -- "...shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Lev. 20:13). [emphasis added]
So, how is this not a call to execute gays? Is there any possible way to reconcile the above recommendations with also saying "but I don't actually want any gays to be killed"? I don't think so — I think that Jim Rudd has stated quite clearly that he would like to see the death penalty imposed for the "crime" of sodomy. Remember, that won't just affect gays but also heterosexuals who engage in oral and anal sex, though Rudd avoids openly noting this fact. Given that the entire basis for his position is the Old Testament, it would be implausible that he wouldn't support the death penalty for other capital crimes in that text — including, for example, abortion and disrespecting parents.
Notice where it says "...their blood shall be upon them"? By the administration of Justice the sodomites' defilement is prevented from defiling society as a whole. (Lev. 18:24) ...It should also be noted that because of the pro-active, intrinsic nature of God's judgments upon any society defiled by these abominations (Lev. 18:25-30), it is impossible for Christians to passively coexist in such a vile society. Our demand that the civil officials administer Justice is based upon the concern for and protection of innocent people, and what iniquities will come upon us all should Justice not be upheld. [emphasis added]
It is true that our justice system exists, in part, for the protection of innocent people. One reason why we lock up murderers, for example, is so that they don't go out and harm more innocent people. Take a closer look at what Jim Rudd is saying, though: the recommendation that gays be executed isn't to ensure that gays don't do out and harm innocent people, but to prevent Rudd's god from harming innocent people.
Rudd is admitting, quite openly and unapologetically, that "God's judgments" on a society "defiled" by the "abomination" of homosexuality wouldn't just visit punishment on those guilty gays, but also on entirely innocent citizens. To put it more simply: Jim Rudd worships and obeys a god that doesn't just punish "guilty" people, but innocent people as well.
Rudd's recommended course of action is to do whatever this god wants in order to avoid being punished for nothing we've actually done ourselves. Isn't that the behavior of people suffering under capricious, authoritarian leaders who punish randomly in order to instill fear in people? That's the sort of system Jim Rudd thinks he's living under and, it appears, wants everyone to live under — and it may be the clearest demonstration that I've yet seen of just how evil, immoral, unjust, and just plain wrong a religion like Christianity can be.