Why Idolaters are Pointless.

By Sophia Siedlberg

1 February 2009

Response to the following article: ACLU & Sexual Amputees Sue Illinois

It was another smirking self-righteous G-d bothering schoolteacher called Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute writing about two transsexual women in Chicago that made me realize just how beyond the pale some of these commentators really are. Higgins basically ranted through her article about how these two transsexual women were men, should be seen as men, made to obey the rules of men and generally spoke like some sort of phalocentric schoolmaster (She has a very masculine writing style) about making them accept the reality of their supposed "Body Integrity Identity Disorder". What is interesting is that the "Authority" she was quoting is not only someone who had genital surgery to become female, but she was also forced to resign from her job as an anesthetist for fiddling with the genitalia of a patient under anesthetic. I mean if we are going to harp on about sexual weirdness, two women seeking amended birth certificates to be recognized as women, and little else, hardly compare with the sort of strangeness Anne Lawrence presents, and here we have Laurie Higgins talking of Lawrence as if she is the wonderful angelic authority in all this.

It is a bit dumb when you think about it. I have yet to figure out why Higgins sees fit to criticize two women who were born "male" simply having surgery to be female, while at the same time she gives a platform to the views of someone who is a lot worse in many fundamental respects. She calls Laurence "She" while emphasizing that the two women she is discussing are "men".

Since when was bearing false witness a biblical act? And since when did it say in the bible that putting man, woman and breeding above G-d is biblical? Well that is news to me. I will say this clearly and again, groups such as the Illinois Family Institute have lost the plot when it comes to biblical teaching. I would be interested to know what biblical justifications Higgins and her friends at NARTH actually have for behaving like this. I would be interested to know how they can run around screaming that surgery does not make a man or a woman and yet they seem quite content to turn a blind eye when intersex kids are made into one or the other sex surgically, without consent.

They know exactly where they are wrong which is why they never respond to what I have written. You see in the religious debates I will win almost every time, not because I have some hot line to G-d (I don't) nor is it because I know more about the bible and bible history than they ever will (Which I do but this is not the point) but because I am not actually placing my objections to their idolatrous behavior in the same way most theologically inclined people do. Usually they get by with rebutting things like "Judge not lest you be judged" and "The disaster of Sodom was down to their inhospitality". They have comments like that well covered in the script. But "You are idolatrous fools seeking to place yokes round people's necks and will face the most severe of punishments if you persist". (Matthew 7, 21:23).

I must have clocked up about eight articles where the misbehavior of certain religious authorities are questioned, and on all eight occasions there has not been a single word in reply to my accusation. They are probably laughing among themselves saying "It is so silly an intersex monstrosity playing Elijah with us, ho ho!" But they know damn well what they are doing wrong and they know damn well that if they stood before the biblical G-d right now, they would be on the fast track to Ga Ben Hinnom, I mean this is why G-d created "hell" in the first place. (Read Jeremiah).

Their biggest mistake is to stand there claiming to be righteous. Biblically speaking you don't do that unless you have a really good reason, and lying about medical sources is not a good reason.  In fact the lack of any good reason to claim one is righteous is a good reason to never claim to be righteous. But believe it or not as a practicing ascetic who regards walking with G-d to be more important than being righteous, I do have the right to question the motives of these people. And I do have the right to call them Idolaters because that is clearly what they are. Never put the law above G-d and never put any part of creation above G-d. That is what the biblical narratives say. I am not going to argue with that.

And why is it these people always if not invariably talk about "men becoming women", well there are two answers to that. Monkeys tend to have the males ruling the troop. Some human males and females see this and decide that this is the natural order" they misquote Genesis 2 and ignore Genesis 1 when doing this. But this is not what the Bible says and they know it. The second reason is that they falsely claim that G-d is a big bearded man, resembling Charlton Heston. If I remember my history right, that was the Hellenic depiction of a top dog deity, like Zeus etc.

Biblically this is condemned; you only have to look at when G-d went ballistic over a certain Golden Calf or when the name "Baal" (Meaning "Master") kept cropping up. G-d cannot be defined and Genesis 1:27 is unambiguous about it. To sit there saying "Men and women are equal but different" is to split G-d in half and they know it. G-d is not divided if you read the text properly so please, if any of these people try to answer, it would help if they did not preach splitting G-d into little bits.

But the real question is what gives these people the right to decide who is male and who is female anyway? and what gives them the right to indulge in the gnashing of teeth when they are told that this is not so.

The huge bank accounts, the polished web-sites and American flags do not impress me at all. What would impress me is if these people had the humility to accept that they are often doing the very things the bible tells them not to. And there is no hiding in the "New Testament" either. Their behavior, that is, their using G-d for personal gain and being self righteous is very much what comes under scrutiny in the gospels.

Their principles are not biblical principles, while they continually claim that they are preaching "Judaeo-Christian" ethics they are actually preaching are a degenerate form of Calvinist fatalism, which is fine if that is what you believe, but it is not a universal tenet of monotheism.

Calvinism has it's flaws but this degenerate power broking arrogant mockery of it is of a different order of stupidity.

Laurie Higgins provides us with a rather visceral description as to why she considers these "Sexual amputees" (her words) a "deception". (this is of course while failing to mention Anne Lawrence's own background, which rather convenient). She even cites the case of her mother having had a hysterectomy and still being no less a woman. Clearly she is trying to frame her argument on the basis of how someone is born, and not how they live. Adolph Hitler was born male, and killed millions, all while being true to his "Inborn manhood" Does that mean he was never wrong?

I hope that Higgins takes the time to think about that comment and the subtle point that is being made here. Obedience to the notion of birth sex is not an automatic marker of a good person, likewise not obeying it is not an automatic marker of someone being bad. The problem with people like Higgins is that if she turns a blind eye to the non consensual surgical "Sexing" of countless intersex children every year, then she is herself engaged in the sort of deception she herself says she opposes.

This is why I say that many of these groups who wave flags, put "Family" in their name and preach predominantly about reproduction and sex are getting it wrong. Not because some would (perhaps rightly) regard them as "Bigots" but because they seek to impose a flesh-theocracy which bears little or no resemblance to Conservative values. My arguments have been almost entirely conservative. Higgins concludes her article with:

"A just and merciful society treats all with respect and compassion. But respect and compassion do not entail complicity in deceit. Integral to real justice, real mercy, real respect and real compassion is truth."

Would Higgins please point out where in her article she has spoken in a just manner? She has not, she has cast a judgment on two women while failing to mention the inconsistency of her sources. Where is the respect? the only respect I can see is for those who say what she wishes to hear. Where is the compassion? In her article there is clearly none, and where is the mercy? That is seriously lacking. I would simply state that  Higgins, has demonstrated herself to be far more deceptive, preaching reproductive idolatry and flesh-theocracy and has tried to deceive us all into believing that she is talking conservative and biblical principles.

She has no right to decide who is male and who is female, that is the preserve of G-d in the biblical sense. And if the world is not neatly falling to its feet to obey Higgins and her ilk, perhaps G-d may be trying to remind her of that.

To illustrate just how arrogant Laurie Higgins is, how about I ask her a question which she will never be able to answer. Who decided that she was to be born female and others to be born male, and then others to be born intersexed? (No I will not accept the argument about "The fall of Adam and Eve" in answer to my mentioning intersex people, which is degenerate fatalism.)  I bet she will come out with something like "Well G-d made me female and those two men men, as such I am right to be female and they are not, I am rubbing their faces in it basically because I am righteous" (Which will still be fall fatalism).

I decided to read more about Laurie Higgins and found someone who normally goes round bashing gay and lesbian folks. Clearly she sees bits of meat rather than people and insists that they obey the rules of being bits of meat. And should anyone change the bits of meat by which they are defined, there is the self appointed one Laurie Higgins saying that G-d does not like it. When did G-d say that to her? Was it G-d? Or was it her hatred of anything that does not fit the rules of a fictional harsh master. (I can say that because I am not the one presenting G-d as a harsh master nor am I splitting G-d and G-d's creation into little bits, I am playing very strictly by the biblical rules).

Laurie Higgins is not facing questions from the LGBT lobby now, but questions rooted firmly in biblical principles. As if happens G-d did not "Make Adam and Steve", That is why G-d walks around the pages of Genesis using the name of El Shaddai. I bet she will be thinking I am agreeing with her over her gay bashing (Wrong!) when in truth I am pointing out that G-d was using a very androgynous name when zapping Sodom and Gomorrah. Perhaps it was not the local gays G-d had an issue with? G-d was both male and female; well actually G-d transcended all that and was making the point if Higgins bothers to read the text properly. I am however sick and tired of repeating this over and over.

Higgins knows what she is doing wrong as do the rest of those in her school of thought policing. There is another question, why are so called monotheists like Higgins so obsessed with regulating the sex and sexuality of others? What purpose does it serve? I can answer that, it is so they can elevate sex and sexuality to a position that is higher than G-d. That is called Idolatry and G-d is a jealous G-d who does not like people worshiping conformity to bits of meat. Be warned Laurie Higgins, Don't be sacrificing people to harsh masters, that is why hell was invented.

For a list of articles by Sophia Siedlberg: Click here