White Western/Christian society has long discriminated against lesbians and homosexuals — ever since the days of Moses — who was neither white nor Christian, but that is beside the point — who claimed that God gave him revelation about what a man or woman is and how they should relate sexually. Happily the Enlightenment freed us from that ancient prejudice, at least in principle, but unhappily, there are still many shackled in the chains of unfair and evil bias against people whose sexual preferences differ. Now, at last, the LGBTQ+ community has political representation and social presence. For the first time in human history — or Western history — perhaps, this community has won the right to be heard — even if not entirely accepted.
It is true, of course, that many ancient societies not afflicted with Mosaic prejudice tolerated and even celebrated a degree of sexual freedom that has not been known in the Christian West. But for various and sundry historically complex reasons, these societies no longer exist and the modern world seems to know little about them. Why? Christian prejudice has erased the memory of their free and open sexual relationships out of fear that the Mosaic rules would be exposed for the fraud they are.
All of the above is now more or less common sense — though for many it would have seemed too radical to even put into words only 50 years ago. At last, the masses have caught up with the Enlightened elite and the LGBTQ+ program is widely accepted and extolled by many leaders.
All of this is wonderful, of course. But it is not enough. There are others in our society who suffer from prejudice, from the most extreme discrimination. It is time someone spoke up for them. Though they might be implied in the “+” of the LGBTQ+, they deserve their own acronym. Yes, I mean: TMPZ+. Who are these people? What do they suffer?
“T” here stands for thieves. Few people have suffered as much discrimination as they and it is almost universal — though some societies have limited tolerance for thieves and other “criminals.” Prejudice against thieves is — it goes without saying — an inescapable concomitant of submitting to the Mosaic rules about property. Societies in bondage to Moses will think in terms of what is mine and what is yours instead of seeing all property as belonging to all men for the good of all. “Theft” is the result of Mosaic rules — even in societies which did not know Moses, but followed his rules all the same. Karl Marx pointed the way to a society free from selfish acquisition and covetousness: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. If we followed his rule instead of Moses, theft would be unnecessary, even undefinable. When someone took something from another, even by force, it would simply be redistributing according to need. There would be no reason for social discrimination against the person who happened to have a special need at that particular time.
“M” here stands for murderers. These may be the most despised group of people on our blue planet and almost every society has had rules against them.1 But the time for their liberation has come. In fact, it began quite some time ago with the elimination — or virtual elimination of the death penalty. It used to be in most of the world — not only those places afflicted with the impact of Moses — that murderers suffered extreme prejudice. They would be put to death! Now, in a more enlightened world, we send them to prison for life where they have a nice apartment to live in, with TV, library, sports facilities, etc. We treat them much more fairly than in the past.
This, however, is simply not enough. Why not? Because when all is said and done, most of the people we call “murderers” had a good reason for terminating another person’s life. It seems that most murders occur among family members. When husbands or wives kill one another, or parents kill children or children parents, this is clearly a family matter that law and government have no right to interfere with. In the Muslim world, for example, honor killings have not been regarded as a matter for legal punishment, but as family affairs to be worked out in the family itself.
Gang murders are similar in the sense that a gang is a substitute family for young men who do not have a traditional family. Violence among various gangs is simply part of their inter-familial relationship and should not be subject either to social condemnation or legal action. They can work things out among themselves.
We also need to remember what Paul Ehrlich warned of in 1968 in his famous book, The Population Bomb. The Prologue began with the prophetic words: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate …” Though he might have misjudged the exact timing of the catastrophe, no one doubts the truth of what he said. There are simply too many people on the planet. Mankind itself is the earth’s greatest ailment — a disease with no cure but to reduce the numbers of those infecting the globe.
With this in mind, what we usually call “murder” is a small scale contribution to solving the overpopulation problem. Remember what Dostoevsky showed clearly in Crime and Punishment that it is only when men commit murder on a small scale that it is frowned upon. Those who murder masses like Alexander the Great or Napoleon are given greatest respect. That is as it should be. But since that is the case, why look down on the man with lesser gifts who can only murder one or two?
“P” of course, stands for pedophile. In the ancient world — in fact, in most societies throughout history — this was not a criminal category. The word itself just means affection for children. What could be wrong with that? Again, it is the Mosaic bias that burdens most of the West. We naturally think that children should not be the object of adult male sexual exploitation. But why not? Who says the children do not enjoy it? Since most societies have found a place for this, why can’t we? It is just a natural part of human relationships.
“Z” stands for zoophile. This word is not common but it refers to an ancient phenomenon. There always have been men — perhaps even some women — who have a special attraction to sexual adventure with animals. Animals themselves seem to be rather uninhibited when it comes to sex. What can be wrong with humans enjoying what other animals also enjoy — promiscuous sex with any other who is capable? Again, it is only Moses who has given this innocent attraction a bad name. The Ayatollah Khomeini, for example, not only did not condemn sexual relationships between adult males and children, it seems he also made provisions for how men should purify themselves after having sexual relationships with goats. Why should the modern Enlightened West be more backward than the Ayatollah Khomeini?
The “+” here is ambiguous. There are many other things such as masochism, sadism, cannibalism, etc. that are looked down upon because of Mosaic bigotry. There is so much unfairness and prejudice in the law of Moses that no acronym can sum it up. Thus the need for a “+”.
It should be clear that the time has come for TMPZ+. If we can only find politicians and intellectuals brave enough to break the binds of Mosaic bondage and come forth for freedom!
Ralph Smith is a pastor of Mitaka Evangelical Church.
- With the obvious exception of abortionists — the greatest murderers in earth history! ↩︎