Rudd – a deeply religious man?

by on 3 September, 2013

EXLUSIVE:

by Jim McCrudden

Kevin Rudd outshone shabbiness last night when he attacked a pastor on Q&A for saying that homosexual marriage was wrong.

He had the trivial smartarse response ready that the Bible also approved slavery, so the Bible wasn't always a good guide.

That wisecrack has been around for yonks and persists in left, secular, and homosexual publications. 

The Tele reported the incident while saying that Rudd was a "deeply religious" man.

That sort of thing sits very uneasily with the public perception of Rudd over the knifing of Julia Gillard. It might be politics but it was not the actions of a "deeply religious"man. And it sits uneasily with the con job he pulled over Abbott's costings, it might be politics but promoting a bare-faced lie is not the action of a "deeply religious" man.

And it is not the action of a "deeply religious" man to take the issue of slavery, about which he either knows from nothing, or is fully aware that the Bible does not support slavery. So is he ignorant, or is he playing to the gallery – following Shakespeares warning to Bassanio "the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose."

It is a common sleazy point in debate when someone quotes the Bible for a position to come back with some superficial and deceitful remark, "The bible also says…" In fact gay marriage literature frequently comes back with the "slavery" argument which suggests that the "deeply religious" Rudd draws inspiration from that well.

One central plank of the Bible is that all men and women are created equal, and as the US constitution puts it are endowed with life and liberty.  That constitutional statement was taken from the Bible. It was a significant issue in the civil war there. It is a significant element in Christian Churches condemnation of "slavery" as we now know it. 

In  Exodus at the very beginning it states "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." Slavery as we know it was punishable by death.

One of the apostles Timothy had this to say "law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, …for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers."

Furthermore, "slavery" within the Old Testament context is a very slippery concept. People would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. A craftsman could use his skills in servitude to discharge a debt.  A convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a "slave" to pay off his debt. This form of "slavery" was still in existence until comparatively recently.  Benjamin Franklin worked for no charge to pay off his father's debts to a farmer.

In any case, reporting  and recognising is not the same thing as endorsing. 

The Prime Minister must have been salivating for someone to denounce same-sex marriage as not being in the Bible. A great chance for a trivial one-liner while enabling him to preach about tolerance and explain how he has twisted away from his earlier position.

Again.

Leave a Reply