"My Oreo Cookie brings all the boys to the yard"
The iconic Oreo cookie is getting a Gay Pride rainbow makeover, at least in a new Facebook ad campaign.
Oreo, which is owned by Kraft Foods, posted on its Facebook page a controversy-stirring ad featuring an Oreo cookie stuffed with a rainbow filling.
“We are excited to illustrate what is making history today in a fun and playful way,” Basil Maglaris, a spokeswoman for Kraft Foods wrote in an email to ABC News. “As a company, Kraft Foods has a proud history of celebrating diversity and inclusiveness. We feel the OREO ad is a fun reflection of our values."
In the last 17 hours, more than 157,000 people "liked" the picture.
Others, however, have been offended, sparking a proposed boycott.
Oreo says it does not plan to sell the depicted rainbow cookie in its ad.
America’s favorite cookie is stirring up more than milk today after Kraft Foods posted a gay pride Oreo on the cookie’s Facebook page.
Oreo posted the photoshopped picture of an Oreo cookie stuffed with rainbow-colored layers of frosting Monday evening with the caption “Proudly support love!”
Over the past 17 hours more than 157,000 people have “liked” the image, 40,000 people have shared it and 20,000 have commented on it.
But while many of the comments were supportive, some Facebook users pledged to boycott the cookie because of the post.
“I’ll never buy Oreo again,” one commenter wrote.
“Disgusted with oreos,” wrote another. “Being gay is an abmonitation in GOd’s eyes i wont be buying them anymore.”
Basil Maglaris, a spokeswoman for Oreo’s parent company Kraft Foods, said in a statement that the image was part of a “series of daily ads reflecting current events in a fun way using images of OREO cookies and milk.” Kraft is not planning to sell the rainbow-stuffed Oreo in stores, Maglaris said, as it was created solely for the advertising campaign in honor of Pride month.
“We are excited to illustrate what is making history today in a fun and playful way,” she said in an email to ABC News. “As a company, Kraft Foods has a proud history of celebrating diversity and inclusiveness. We feel the OREO ad is a fun reflection of our values.”
Other images in the Oreo ad campaign, which celebrates the cookie’s 100th birthday, include a parody of the No. 1 hit song “Call Me Maybe,” depicting an Oreo and glass of milk next to tweaked lyrics.
“I just met you and this is crazy, but here’s some milk so dunk me maybe,” reads the ad, also posted to the Oreo Facebook wall.
Oreo is the latest in a string of juggernaut brands to show support for the LGBT community.
In honor of Pride month Target launched a line of gay pride t-shirts, and the proceeds went to support the Family Equality Council, a Washington D.C.-based gay rights advocacy group. The pride shirts sold out in less than a month.
Ben & Jerry’s, a longtime supporter of LGBT causes, renamed its apple pie flavor “Apple-y Ever After” in scoop shops throughout the U.K. in March, while the British government was debating legalizing same sex marriages.
The Vermont-based ice cream company re-vamped its peanut butter-filled pretzel flavor in 2009 when same sex marriage was being legalized in Vermont, swapping the “Chubby Hubby” name for “Hubby Hubby.”
Source:
Homosexuality and Halakhah
Traditional sources on homosexuality.
By Rabbi Michael Gold
The following article is reprinted with permission from Does God Belong in the Bedroom? Two claims made by Gold in this article are disputable and should be noted. First, is the assertion that Judaism is not concerned with inner feelings. While it is true that in Judaism actions are more often than not privileged over thoughts and feelings, certain manifestations of Judaism, including hasidism and musar (a 19th century movement that focused on the study of Jewish ethics and values), do stress the importance of inner feelings. Second, is Gold’s assertion that natural law is a concept foreign to Judaism. While some scholars have assumed this to be true, others disagree.An important point to make from the outset is that Jewish law does not teach that it is forbidden to be a homosexual. On the contrary, Jewish law is concerned not with the source of a person’s erotic urges nor with inner feelings, but with acts. The Torah forbids the homosexual act, known as mishkav zakhar, but has nothing to say about homosexuality as a state of being or a personal inclination.
In other words, traditionally, a person with a homosexual inclination can be an entirely observant Jew as long as he or she does not act out that inclination.
The Biblical Sources
The basis of the prohibition against homosexual acts derives from two biblical verses in Leviticus: “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence” (Leviticus 18:22) and “If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death—their bloodguilt is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). The Torah considers a homosexual act between two men to be an abhorrent thing (to’evah),punishable by death—a strong prohibition.The Torah gives no reason for this commandment. Some commentators have looked for a rationale in the story of Sodom, in which the men in the town attempt to rape the visitors to Lot’s house. (See Genesis 19; the word “sodomy” comes from this incident.) However, the occurrence in the story was a case of homosexual rape, hardly a legitimate precedent for the kind of consensual homosexual acts we are considering. Others see the root of the prohibition in the verse “No Israelite woman shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any Israelite man be a cult prostitute” (Deuteronomy 23:18). Cultic prostitution, both hetero‑ and homosexual, was a common feature of idolatrous worship in the ancient Near East, but, like the story of Sodom, it is no longer a relevant precedent for modern homosexuality.
Various rabbis have tried to come up with other reasons for the biblical prohibition of mishkav zakhar. (Note, however, that a Torah prohibition always stands on its own even if no cogent rationale can be found for it.) Some rabbis have argued that homosexuality is forbidden because procreation is impossible. Others have defined the homosexual act as intrinsically unnatural and therefore opposed to the purposes of creation. There are difficulties, however, with both explanations. Judaism grants sexuality a purpose above and beyond procreation, and natural law, although influential in the Catholic Church, is not an authentic Jewish concept.
A Talmudic Interpretation
A more likely explanation for the ban against homosexual behavior is given in the Talmud by Bar Kapparah, who makes a play on the word to’evah(“abomination”), claiming that it means to’eh atah ba (“you go astray because of it”). Both Tosefot and the Asheri (medieval commentators) comment on this passage that a man will leave his wife and family to pursue a relationship with another man. In other words, homosexuality undermines and threatens the Jewish ideal of family life, of marriage and children, articulated in the Torah. Heterosexuality is the communal norm for Jews; homosexuality, a perversion of that norm.The Assumption of Heterosexuality
Rabbinic literature assumes that Jews are not homosexual. For example, the Mishnah presents the following disagreement between Rabbi Judah and the Sages: “R. Judah said: A bachelor should not herd animals, nor should two bachelors share a single blanket. The Sages permit it.” The halakhah follows the Sages because the Talmud says, “Israel is not suspected of homosexuality.”The Shulhan Arukh (a foundational work of Jewish law from the 16th century) never explicitly mentions the prohibition against homosexual acts but mentions the precaution that a male should not be alone with another male because of lewdness “in our times.” However, Rabbi Joel Sirkes ruled about one hundred years later that such precautions were unnecessary because of the rarity of such acts among Polish Jewry.
A more recent responsum was brought by Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, the first chief rabbi in Palestine. A rumor that a certain shohet (ritual slaughterer) had committed a homosexual act provoked the question of whether he should be disqualified for the position. Rav Kook ruled that the shohet could be retained because, even if the rumor were true, the man might have since repented of his act. It is noteworthy that Rabbi Kook’s responsum considers homosexuality an act of volition for which one can repent.
Lesbianism
Lesbianism is never mentioned in the Torah. One talmudic passage refers to homosexual acts between women: “R. Huna taught, Women who have sex one with the other are forbidden to marry a Kohen (priest).” The halakhah rejects Rav Huna’s opinion and allows a lesbian to marry a Kohen. However, Maimonides ruled that lesbianism is still prohibited and should be punished by flagellation. The prohibition is not as stringent as that against male homosexuality because the Torah does not explicitly prohibit lesbianism, and because lesbianism does not involve the spilling of seed.A Summary
We can now summarize the classical halakhic position:Judaism is concerned with explicit acts, not inner feelings.
A homosexual act between two men is explicitly forbidden in the Torah.
A homosexual act between two women is forbidden by the rabbis (i.e. it was not forbidden by the Torah, but was in later times forbidden; this type of prohibition is less severe).
Homosexuality is considered an act of volition for which one can repent.
The reason for the prohibitions seems to be that such behavior undermines the Jewish family ideal of marriage and children as set out in the Torah.
Rabbinic thinkers in the past did not consider homosexuality a Jewish behavior problem.
Source: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Sex_and_Sexuality/Homosexuality/Homosexuality_and_Halakhah_Prn.shtml
Rabbi Michael Gold is the rabbi at Temple Beth Torah, Tamarac Jewish Center in Tamarac, Florida. He is the author of four books, and his articles have appeared in Moment, Judaism, Jewish Spectator, B'nai Brith International Jewish Monthly, and numerous other publications. He also served as co-chair of the Rabbinical Assembly's committee on human sexuality.Christianity and Homophobia
There are many definitions of homophobia. Many people think of homophobia as just a fear of gay people. There is more to homophobia than a fear of homosexuals and homosexuality. A good working definition is that homophobia is disgust, prejudice, discrimination, hatred or violence against gay and lesbian people that is caused by an irrational fear of homosexuality. Homophobia is not always blatant to a person who is afraid of homosexuality. In fact, homophobia can be a subtle fear. Some people have an unconscious fear of gay people.
There are many forms of homophobia. Two major avenues where homophobia is seen and encouraged in society are religious and political.
Religious Homophobia
There are many forms of homophobia. Two major avenues where homophobia is seen and encouraged in society are religious and political.
Religious Homophobia
While evangelism and teaching are major roles of the church, they are not the only roles of the church. The church of Jesus Christ is called to stand against injustice against people. The call is to stand against political, religious and social injustice and to help make the world a better place in which to live.
Unfortunately, some churches do not fulfill their full Christian calling. They focus on evangelism and teaching and do not make much effort to look after the weak and powerless members of society. To make a bad situation worse,a few churches have pastors and Sunday school teachers who publicly teach, model, engage in and promote homophobia.
Anti-Family Comments are Homophobic
When churches try to portray gay people as enemies of the family, they are engaging in homophobia. The reality is that gay people have families. Encouraging strong families is in the best interest of homosexuals. Marriage was starting to run into trouble long before we heard very much about gay rights. Marital break down can be due to many causes. To state homosexuals are anti-family, is to imply homosexuals are to blame for divorce and family breakdown.
Many gay men and lesbian women have been cut off from their families. No longer are they welcome in their own homes. Gay people do not want to be cut off from their families, thrown out of home and disowned by their families. Homosexuals want to be part of their families.
Gay people want the right to be married. They are striving to have families and to have families that are legally recognized. Fighting for the ability to get married and to have a stable long-term relationship is not opposing families. In fact, that is supporting families. How many straight Christians do you know who have gone to court to be able to get married and have a long-term relationship?
Some gay people are lobbying for the right to adopt children. Adopting children is forming a family. When gay people are willing to lobby to be able to adopt children, they are demonstrating a commitment to the family that goes beyond the level of commitment seen by some straight people.
Theological Homophobia
Many pastors teach that the salvation of gay people is in question. Some pastors and churches go as far as to indicate gay people will not be saved. From the pulpits, gay people are taught to fear God and to fear themselves.
Portraying homosexuals as being beyond God's grace one of the worst forms of religious-based homophobia. Nobody is too evil for God's grace.When churches explicitly or implicitly teach gay people cannot be saved, they engage in theological and emotional terrorism. Gay church members and adherents are spiritually and emotionally terrorized from pulpits and Sunday school podiums, and in church publications in far too many churches.
Theological homophobia is based on a poor understanding of the gospel. Indicating a group of people are beyond God's grace is really stating Jesus Christ did not pay the price for the sins of humanity, because some sins are too big for Christ's atoning blood. John 3:16 indicates whosoever believeth can be saved. The verse does not state whosoever is heterosexual may be saved. Gay people can and are being saved.
Political Homophobia
A few political figures are attempting to gain political power at the expense of gay people. Campaigning by promoting fear and hatred of gay people is wrong! That is morally wrong, ethically incorrect and is a sin. These morally bankrupt political figures are sinning against gay people and against God by their actions.
Christian Response to Homophobia
God is calling Christians to speak out against all types and forms of homophobia. Discrimination, prejudice, hatred and violence against gay people is wrong. As people of God, Christians are called to stand in opposition to homophobia when it is demonstrated in society, in the church and in political circles.
Churches and church leaders are not all powerful. They can be brought into line with the gospel through spiritual protests that are aimed ensuring church leaders adequately represent God's love to the gay community. Weak points where churches can be pressured into doing what God wants them to include the offering plate, attendance and the processes for choosing pastors and denominational administrators.
Work with God to bring the gospel to gay people, by voting your pocket book and your feet. After homophobic sermons are given, withhold offerings. Give those offerings to churches that are attempting to show God's love to the gay community. Should homophobic sermons continue, withdraw your membership and find another church to attend. Leaving and providing a reason why you are leaving makes an impact.
Ask candidates to be pastors and church administrators hard questions about their position on homosexuality and how they plan to carry the good news that God loves gay people to the gay community. Do not support pastors and church leaders who are not able to demonstrate that God loves gay people and wants them included in the church of Jesus Christ. Vote against homophobic pastors and church leaders. Defeat them, so they cannot get or continue to hold church-based jobs that give them the ability hurt gay people in the name of God.
When politicians demonstrate homophobia, take decisive action. Phone their offices to voice concern and write letters of protest. Withhold financial support for candidates and political parties that engage in verbal gay bashing. Vote against candidates and political parties that are attempting to gain political power on the backs of gay and lesbian citizens. Join action groups that lobby for the protection of gay people and for gay rights. Links to some Christian lobby groups can be found on the gay Christian web links of this site. Links to some secular lobby groups are on the gay resource links.
People wanting to get involved in God's struggle to end homophobia are encouraged to contact Soulforce.
Action and Love
Christians are to love their enemies. Even homophobic church leaders and political leaders are to be loved. When Christians lobby against church and political leaders who engage in homophobic acts and who promote homophobia, they are protest in love. Respect is to be shown, even when there is strong disagreement. There is little need for insults, profane language or yelling. Many times a soft, respectful voice is much more effective.
The Bible and Homosexuality
The Bible does not discuss homosexuality. Sexual orientations, as we understand them now, were not understood by the Bible writers. The New Concise Bible Dictionary says the Bible talks about homosexual conduct, but says nothing specifically about homosexuality. The second edition of Tyndale's New Bible Dictionary, a dictionary opposed to same-gender sexual relationships, notes that even though the Revised Standard Version uses the "misleading" translation homosexual, the Bible mentions nothing "specifically" about homosexuality as a "condition." Because the Bible does not discuss sexual orientations, the Bible cannot be used to condemn homosexuality or bisexuality as sexual orientations. The debate must focus only on if the Bible condemns same-gender sexual relationships.
The Bible is the Word of God and outstanding literature. As with all good literature, one can read passages of the Bible many times and get new insights with each reading. Understanding the many messages God is giving us in His word is more of an art than a science. Unlike science, we cannot perform an experiment with a Bible text and guarantee we will get the right answer, the right interpretation. Because interpreting the Bible is an art, and not an exact, precise art, people are urged to accept those who do not agree with their interpretation of a specific passage from the Bible.Those to be distrusted and feared the most are those who take a dogmatic position about the meaning of Bible texts where the meaning in the Christian community is in dispute. Beware of those who claim to be speaking for God about these Bible texts.
There are a few references in the Bible to what could be sexual activities among members of the same sex or the same gender. The same-gender sexual activities mentioned in some Bible passages may be references to very specific situations, as opposed to a general pronouncement about homosexuality.
Some of the passages typically used to show gay relationships are wrong are as follows:
Source:
In the first century of its incarnation Christianity was a morbid, sociopathic death cult, unnoticed by most of the Roman world. Convinced that they alone would survive the impending apocalypse, the Christians went about their affairs in daily anticipation and fear of their Lord, the saviour who would descend from the clouds in glory to judge the quick and the dead. Nothing in the demeanour, dress or word of the saints could be allowed to jeopardise imminent judgement and the hoped for salvation. In a manner reprised time and again in the centuries ahead by puritans and fanatics, abstinence, chastity and somber domestic virtues, laced with a bitter spite towards the vast herd of unbelieving humanity, distinguished the Christians from their insouciant neighbours.
Only religious fanatics, convinced that the dead would rise and the world would end, could see virtue in mass chastity. Unfortunately, those fanatics would capture control of the empire.
Pleasure – a distraction from God
"To be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life ... The carnal mind is enmity against God ... They that are in the flesh cannot please God ... If you live after the flesh, you shall die: but if you through the Spirit domortify the deeds of the body, you shall live."– Romans 8.6,13."The chaste severity of the fathers, in whatever related to the commune of the two sexes, flowed from the same principle; their abhorrence of every enjoyment, which might gratify the sensual, and degrade the spiritual, nature of man."– Gibbon, Decline and fall, 15.
In the first century of its incarnation Christianity was a morbid, sociopathic death cult, unnoticed by most of the Roman world. Convinced that they alone would survive the impending apocalypse, the Christians went about their affairs in daily anticipation and fear of their Lord, the saviour who would descend from the clouds in glory to judge the quick and the dead. Nothing in the demeanour, dress or word of the saints could be allowed to jeopardise imminent judgement and the hoped for salvation. In a manner reprised time and again in the centuries ahead by puritans and fanatics, abstinence, chastity and somber domestic virtues, laced with a bitter spite towards the vast herd of unbelieving humanity, distinguished the Christians from their insouciant neighbours.
But time passed, the Lord did not come, and the first generation of the brethren "fell asleep". To replace the dead, marriage, solely for the purpose of procreation, became tolerable, at least within the faith. But the marriage bonds came with the caveat of indissolubility. They would last for the eternal age yet to come and a remarriage was nothing less than adultery.
Like every subsequent apocalyptic cult that has boldly proclaimed the End Time and embarrassingly survived into a new era, Catholicism adroitly adjusted its doctrine for the "long haul".
Catholicism – a compromise with reality
How could the early evangelists of Christianity compete with the taverns, the circuses, the theatres, the baths and the bordellos that graced every Roman city? Only with difficulty, only by exploiting the misfortunes that befell the Roman world and only by appealling to neglected marginal elements ("matrons and orphans") of the population (even slaves could attend the games).
Catholicism was an opportunistic compromise in the face of need and opportunity for a universal faith. Within two or three generations it outgrew its early austere fanaticism (refusal to serve in the legions, will to martyrdom). Fanatics like Tertullian left to join marginal sects of purists, leaving more urbane Catholic bishops to frequent the corridors of the imperial palaces.
Orthodoxy borrowed without embarrassment or apology from its enemies and in particular drew from the books of gnostic heresy. "Pleasures of the flesh" remained an enemy, just as surely as the fertility gods and goddesses of the pagans who delighted in procreation. But now a taste of power favoured accommodation and rapprochement with a disbelieving world.
In an age when Judgement Day and the Kingdom of Heaven had been anticipated at any moment, celibacy and denial of the body had a passable rationale. The world was about to end. But as the Apocalypse retreated further and further beyond the horizon, few could succumb to Christianity's austere, joyless dictates without penalty. Those who did, reclusive hermits, anchorites, stylites and the rest of the menagerie, were lionized by a more worldly church. Admired and applauded for their "heroic piety" and useful as propaganda for the faith, they were contained within a more pragmatic and universal Church.
A triumphant Catholicism would forgive "pleasures of the flesh". After all, huge profits were to be derived from venial sin.
No comments:
Post a Comment