ATLANTA - A lawsuit filed today in Atlanta's Northern District Court of Georgia alleges that key portions of the so-called "New Testament" of the Bible contain inaccurate and misleading quotes of its central figure.
Jesus H. Christ, plaintiff in the suit, claims through His spokesman here on Earth that the passages in the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke wherein He is quoted responding to a lawyer's question about which was the most important commandment, have been wrongly reported.
"I didn't really say to love your neighbor as yourself," Christ said in a statement read to reporters by His self-proclaimed representative, Pat Robertson. "The first part of that quote" - the portion directing Christians to love God - "is the operative statement. The other statement is inoperative."
(As of presstime, confusion exists about the exact identity of Christ's authorized spokesman. In addition to Robertson, several others have claimed to speak for and with Christ, but Robertson has generally been recognized as having the most direct contact with Christ and his Father, God.)
According to the New Testament's Book of Mark, the exchange between the lawyer - a Pharisee - and Christ was as follows:
And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
The incident is related similarly in the Book of Matthew as well as the Book of Luke.
"I never intended for that to mean that you had to love all your neighbors," Christ said in his statement. "Homosexuals, non-Christians (except for some Jews), Democrats and people who park illegally in handicapped stalls do not fall under that requirement."
If the jury in His suit should find for Him, Christ's contention that He was misquoted would serve to bolster the position of plaintiffs in another suit, filed by Georgia Tech students Ruth Malhotra and Orit Sklar, where they claim that their religious beliefs compel them to denounce homosexuals, and that current university policy unconstitutionally prohibits them from doing so.
The portion of the university's Student Code and Community Guide that is being challenged in Malhotra and Sklar's complaint says,
The following are Acts of Intolerance and are considered unacceptable:
- A. Any attempt to injure, harm, malign, or harass a person because of race, religious belief, color, sexual/affectional orientation, national origin, disability, age, or gender.
- B. Direct verbal or physical assaults upon an individual because of their racial, ethnic, or sexual/affectional identity.
- C. Posting, painting, engraving or otherwise displaying derogatory slogans or symbols on personal or state property [snip]
- F. Denigrating written/verbal communications (including the use of telephones, emails and computers) directed toward an individual because of their characteristics or beliefs.
Malhotra's and Sklar's suit also seeks to stop university funding for programs that support tolerance for homosexuals, arguing that such organizations, by citing historical religious objections to homosexuality, are themselves endorsing a religious position. The University and its agents, their complaint states, "acting under color of state law, have enacted policies and practices that endorse particular religious beliefs, thereby violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
It was not known at presstime whether the plaintiffs intend to extend their complaint to include the school dining commons, where shellfish and pepperoni pizza are regularly served, in contravention of the plaintiffs' religious beliefs. Also in question is whether a rumored "right to stone" will be sought not only against homosexual university students and faculty members, but also against those known to be living together outside marriage.