So Many Christians Ignorant About Their Bible

"We can start with this great little post by the Educated Eclectic from Pam's House Blend. It is widely known that fundamentalist Christians rely on Leviticus to justify their preexisting hatred of GLBT individuals. Their argument is quite simple:

The bible is the inerrant word of some god.
The bible condemns homosexuality (in Leviticus).
Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.

The first claim is accepted uncritically for it is a core tenet of Christian fundamentalism. That the bible condemns homosexuality is clearly evident in Leviticus. So the conclusion is inevitable, at least to the fundamentalist Christian.

The Educated Eclectic invites us to apply exactly the same argument to another part of Leviticus.

Leviticus 19:19 says:

.. neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.

There is nothing in the Christian bible to suggest that this portion of Leviticus is any less serious than the part about homosexuality. And yet, the inescapable conclusion is that wearing clothing made of linen-wool blends is wrong in the same way homosexuality is wrong. I see two possible explanations for the fact that fundamentalist Christians ignore this passage. First, they are unaware of what the rest of Leviticus says, suggesting that they are not the Christians they claim to be. Second, their objections to homosexuality have absolutely nothing to do with their bibles and are simply based in prejudice."

Atheist Revolution, 28. august

Woman in UK 'groomed' as bomber

The former wife of a British Islamist extremist has said her husband suggested she carry out a suicide bombing against the UK.

[...]

"He used to say we should all do jihad because he used to give an example of a woman who was a suicide bomber in India, who killed herself," she said in the interview.
"My husband told me I should join him to participate in jihad as well."
The woman told the programme her husband attempted to give her instructions in how to turn herself into a suicide bomber by concealing explosives under baggy, traditional, Islamic clothes.
"He would tell me how to use a [bomb] belt around the waist," she said. "Whenever he would discuss these matters I just would ignore him and go to the kitchen."
The woman said: "I told him I'm not interested at all. He was very clever. He told me how the girls tied the suicide belt around their waist and [wore] the hijab over the top.

BBC, 11 June 2007

So, the religious dress for muslim women can 1. cover their identity and 2. cover bombs.
How very convenient.

On a similar note:

"Netherlands: Demand to study veils in cars
The Party for Freedom wants a study about the "quickly rising number" is women driving with a veil. The veil considerably narrows the women's field of vision, and they notice cyclists and pedestrians too late when turning. Parliament member Barry Madlener wants Minister of Transportation Eurlings to study the dangers of a veil and burqa. "I have already heard from many people that they that almost been ran over by a woman with a veil."
Madlener says that veils often stick out a bit, and obstruct the view to the side. Moreover drivers wearing a veil hear less.
There are no rules for wearing a veil in traffic. The parliament member wants women to take off the veil in the car if it turns out that it's dangerous."

Nederlands Dagblad via Islamineurope.blogspot.com June 08, 2007

As the blogger laconically says: "And then people wonder why Saudi Arabia forbids women from driving."