Sigh. This shouldn't even be an issue... But clearly it's a bee in SOMEONE'S bonnet as they felt it significant and important enough to write an entire article about it.

The problem with the article in question, and others of their ilk, is multifaceted.

First of all, they ALL tend to be written from the point of view of a VERY narrow band of modern, evangelical Christianity. Even within this realm of modern, evangelical Christianity you will find spectra of individuals whose individual beliefs are anything but congruous.

Second of all, evidence for their spiritual arguments tends to be taken out of LINGUISTIC context. In this case, the individual in question is using a GREEK concordance and a quote from the New Testament (Brit Chadashah in Hebrew) to lend support to a passage that came from the Torah (Old Testament). Now, while Christianity recognizes the authority of BOTH as being the unified Word of God, only an uneducated layman would try to explain a word from a certain language, pertaining to a particular, temporal civilization with a word coming from a completely different time, language, and civilization. Analogously, as an absurd example, what would be the correct, universally accepted Latin term for a "cellphone?" (P.S. Henry Beard's conjecturing is NOT considered universally accepted).

Third of all, evidence for their spiritual arguments tends to lack CULTURAL context as well. Believe me, rabbis throughout history have spent a LONG time meditating and pondering over the intent and appropriate meaning and interpretation of the contents of the Torah. It might be just a tad arrogant to think that Johnny-come-lately who just picked up a Bible and read it from cover to cover might supersede the knowledge of hundreds of generations of scholars (both Christian AND Jewish). The key to literary criticism here is to understand the context of the passage among the others surrounding it, IN ADDITION to understanding the cultural, social, and political climate it was written. Only then do you even stand a chance to begin to grok WHY something was written -- for what purpose?

In this case, (specifically Deut. 22:5) is problematic. Scholars agree that scholars DO NOT agree on the interpretation of this verse. It would be arrogant to say that you KNOW, for a fact, and beyond any reasonable doubt, that you understand what's going on here, when scholars themselves hold no such arrogance, and admit that they can only guess at the true meaning.

Aside from interpreting this verse literally, as-written, others have postulated that a woman wearing men's clothes refers SPECIFICALLY to the MALE-only items (Hebrew: kli gever) involved in Jewish spirituality: namely, teffilin, and tallit. Another Jewish scholar reads the word as kli gibbor (remember, in ancient Hebrew the vowels were omitted so this is a homograph).... And in THAT context, it would mean: warrior's gear, i.e. sword, shield, armor. Which would make sense if your civilization calls for women to stay away from the battlefield.

Other scholars argue that the prohibition is based ENTIRELY in the fact that G-d wanted to separate the Jewish people from the ceremonies, rites, and rituals of the surrounding tribes and peoples, many of whom practiced fertility religions, and cross-dressing may have had some role to play in some of those rituals.

Yet, even other reasoning for WHY this law is put into place ponders the simple deceitfulness of wearing the opposite gender's clothing. E.g. a man might want to dress like a woman in order to gain access to women for the purpose of committing adultery (like in the case of a harem)... Because separation of the sexes was VERY important in those days, at that time, there would be some very real reasons why someone might want to disguise themselves. But it is interesting to note, that Jewish scholars very specifically ALLOW men to wear women's clothing for the purpose of amusement, such as the case of putting on a Purim play, and playing a female character (Shulhan Arukh - a 16th century book of Jewish law).

Jewish scholars also point out that the KEY to all of this isn't absolute -- i.e. it is not the CLOTHING ITSELF, but rather, the societal context of each particular region, time, and place. E.g. If in your particular remote village in Asia it is commonplace for MEN to wear skirts and WOMEN to wear pants, you would be violating Deut. 22:5 by wearing PANTS... (Shulhan Arukh (Yore De`a)

Anyway, what all this boils down to is very, very simple. The article in question is simply ONE man's humble opinion. He, like anyone else, has the right to express himself (and the right to be dead wrong too). However, unlike many others, he just happens to be very angry, and very disturbed by men wearing kilts -- something that he's just going to have to GET OVER. (Either that, or join Westboro Baptist Church. I hear they're looking for some new members).