This one's for Ray, and how encouraging it is to hear his point.
By definition, civil discussion is the same thing as argument. The American Heritage Dictionary (via dictionary.com) lists, "a discussion in which disagreement is expressed" as the primary definition for the word "argument." Their listing under the secondary use of the term is, "A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood." So I'm not at all surprised that Ray and WCharles have "civil discussions" in spite of the fact that they are from opposing ends of the political spectrum. What surprises me is that they're willing to admit it and how few people still engage in it.
Here's the deal: civil discussion is beneficial to all who engage or even listen. It is the only way to solve problems that we've never considered before because if we don't at least hear another point of view, the only facts we'll consider are the ones we've already considered. What happens when a new problem comes along? Civil discussion is a handy way to get the job done or the decision made and I believe it is precisely what our founding fathers had in mind when they created that whole checks and balances scenario. Civil discussion used to be the fruit of our two-party system that evolved out of what those fathers set up. These days, however, civil discussion, which is actually just argument, has taken on an evil persona.
I'd rather listen to Plato and Socrates... so did our founding fathers. Plato and Socrates had this crazy idea that by arguing (discussing) topics, we could learn more about them and come up with better decisions that were necessary in order to deal with those topics. So why is argument such a bad word today? Why do so many shy away from argument now? Why has it become acceptable to "avoid confrontation," especially in places where it's supposed to happen, like congress, or on topics about which it is necessary to establish consensus, like politics. How is it that we let "never argue politics" become de facto law in a land supposedly run by the people. If we don't argue, we can't rule. Not effectively and in the spirit of how our rule was created anyway.
As a continuing student of the writing process, I've noticed a trend in the changing definition of research as well... formal research in an academic environment, that stems from this changing connotation of argument.
While it is human nature to seek out that which proves our point while at the same time ignoring that which disproves it, academic research used to mean getting over that human trait in search of something closer to true knowledge. Academic research used to mean learning something. Today it seems to mean "proving our point." But if all we ever do is seek out only that information which proves our own point and ignore the rest of the facts, we've stopped learning anything. Before I continue, I have to give credit to Dr. Chris Hall in the Graduate Writing and Rhetoric program at Wright State University. His was the first class I've attended in which this topic was formally discussed. He made it very clear in his Research for Writing class that one's thesis may change, perhaps dramatically, during the collection of information. If it doesn't, you're probably not doing real research... or your topic may not be worthy of research since you were able to guess at the thesis without gathering data on it.
So what does academia have to do with our political world these days? In his article, "Greetings from Idiot America," in the November Esquire, Tom Junod describes the nationwide effect of this changing definition of research like this: "...America is devolving into a land where fact is merely that which enough people believe and truth is measured by how fervently they believe it." Junod describes several ways for determining truth in Idiot America including this handy test: "How does it play to Joe Six-Pack in the bar?" To verify this decision making process, Junod points out the survey taken during the presidential election wherein more respondents said they'd rather have a beer with W than with John Kerry. And so the fate of a nation went. The only problem I have with this is, if we're going to elect "one of the guys" as president, I want it to be me. I doubt I could have done a better job, but I want it to be me. When electing a president, "most fun to have a beer with" shouldn't be a factor. I don't want to be president precisely because I am one of the guys. A president should be more than that. That should have been an argument but it wasn't. It wasn't allowed to be because we all wanted to avoid confrontation.
Idiot America's method for "discovering truth" is great for checking popular opinion, but that's not fact. It's not truth. Worse, when facts aren't involved, Idiot America seems to think that right or wrong can be determined in the same way - numbers. In addition to forgetting what the definition of "argument" really is, we seem to have forgotten that majority rules, which is an expedient way of ending discussion, has no bearing whatsoever on whether the outcome is actually a good one. Idiot America says, "hey, the majority said it, so it must be true or good." Truth has nothing to do with numbers. It shouldn't anyway. Nor does truth have anything to do with marketing. We all bought VCRs instead of the superior Beta... we continued to buy Harleys when they were really AMFs (and junk). The numbers are no indication of truth or quality.
So when Idiot America confuses the majority opinion with the truth, the argument should begin. It is at this point that the importance of discussion, civil or otherwise, becomes evident. Rather than growing tired of arguing and calling for an immediate vote, this is when the argument should pick up steam. And the arguers need to forget feeling good, or avoiding confrontation and just argue. State your points. Listen to the other guy's points. Get mad, say the wrong things, throw political correctness out the frickin' window and argue for Pete's sake! How else are you ever going to find any common ground?
The issue of confrontation avoidance may well be at the heart of the changing definition of research. Since we don't really want to offend anyone anymore, we quietly gather all of our facts, launch a salvo of them, and leave. We concentrate so hard on making bulletproof "arguments" that we don't bother to acknowledge any of the facts that don't fit the plan. Instead of asking the "opponent" what he knows about this or that fact, which would fall into his area of expertise and make his case and hurt ours, we ignore those facts. In this way, everyone can stay happy and smile because no one has to argue or debate anything. Then we let all of this build up until it spills into public policy, formed in the absence of true debate rather than as a result of it. Instead of trying to determine if our facts are sound, we concern ourselves more with how many people agree with them.
That's not what the founding fathers had in mind. They argued. I think we're supposed to as well.
The 'blog is such a great forum for it too. No one gets hurt but everyone can play. So when I am overtaken by my military institutionalization and stoop to creating an acronym for Anonymous Super Spin Boy, don't be offended Ray. If I didn't see some worthwhile outcome in engaging your comments, I wouldn't respond to them. ASS boy was pretty low, but it didn't really hurt and it wasn't really intended to... it was intended to keep you coming back, armed to the teeth so that something bigger might come of all this wind.
A close friend of mine is also a conservative republican. In our younger days, we had quite a few discussions of the sort Ray and WCharles have, only ours weren't usually civil. They are much more so these days, but only because we've both grown so disillusioned. But even in the most heated, non-civil arguments, I learned a lot. He's told me he gave up discussing politics with me because he didn't want to argue. (exactly my point) By the new definition, many would call that a victory. I considered it a loss, on my part, of his perspective. I've always respected his views and just assumed we agreed to disagree, but during our last little vacation in Iraq, I discovered how much we really have in common again. In fact here's a funny story about that:
He and I were driving back from lunch one day when we passed the spot where two of our troops had been injured when a rocket landed near them. The injuries were minor (to the extent that an injury during a war can be minor), but met the requirements of the Purple Heart citation. Rumors and opinions flew through camp, as gossip tends to, on whether these medals were deserved or not and we couldn't really escape it even though neither of us really cared whether or not these guys got their medals. We were just glad we didn't get hurt! And, of course, that these two guys weren't hurt more seriously.
As we rounded the corner of the building where the incident took place, he turned to me just as I turned to him and here's what we said to each other simultaneously:
Me: I'll never question the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth again.
Him: I'll never question John Kerry's Purple Hearts again.
This inspired a healthy dose of much needed laughter and it re-opened our long dormant discussions. He's pretty pissed right now about the current price of diesel fuel. I'm pretty pissed about the public opinion polls which, from my perspective, only confirm what I had guessed seven years ago and tried to say more eloquently again three years ago.
So it shouldn't surprise you Ray that I do value your opinion even if I think it's wrong. (I'm kidding... I don't always think that, and it's your opinion... it doesn't matter what I think of it!) I want to hear it. I want to be forced to reinforce and defend my own thoughts. The way I see it, if you're not willing to argue for your opinion, then how much can you really believe it. And, as they say, if you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything. I don't want people who will fall for anything electing my next Commander in Chief. I don't want people whose opinions are so weak, so ill founded that they're not capable or are not willing to defend them deciding the fate of our nation.
Oh, and don't take Matthawk's criticism as harshly as it sounds. Less than five years ago he and I had a series of heated discussions about how important voting is... he wasn't even registered and tried to convince me it was a waste of time! I didn't win anything and he didn't lose, but now he stays informed on the issues and he votes and is learning to express his opinions on matters politic. He's relatively new to the game and is just sharpening his claws, so give him some room. I've had to all my life... he's my little brother. Don't think I molded his opinion either... he never does anything I tell him to do. He says he just got tired of the idiots he works with choosing his leader for him.
And no, it doesn't surprise me to hear that democrats are described as not wanting to hear the truth on conservative 'blogs... nor does it really concern me all that much. I'm not a democrat. On the 2004 ballot, I only voted for one democrat (guess who) out of about fifteen partisan races. But did you know that on some liberal 'blogs people say Ann Coulter is hot? I love a woman who's not afraid to argue! It's one of many, many reasons I stay married to my wife!
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Friday, October 21, 2005
Biblical Interpretations
"I would dictate that "tolerance groups" who go about promoting thier homosexual agenda and who hypocratically persecute those of us who believe homosexuality is a sin, will from now on be made to read the Bible (either the King James or New International Version) in its entirey until they realize the error of thier ways. " WJL from Shaker Heights, OH
I was browsing 'blogs, procrastinating the mountain of work I brought home for the weekend when I ran across one of those political quizzes that promises to tell you if you're liberal or conservative... so I took it... no surprises, and while looking at my results and those of the last 10 quizzees, just as I thought there wasn't anything to get fired up about, I found WJL- from-Shaker-Heights,-OH's quote.
The spelling above is as it appeared on the site. In fact, I just cut and pasted it here from OKCupid.com... where I took the quiz. That should be the first indication that something is wrong with WJL, but it's far from the only indication. As a trained grader of student writing, I have learned to look for the potential, not the mechanical flaws, so I can overlook and make the best of the poor spelling and punctuation WJL uses. It's the potential that frightens me. WJL seems to have the potential to stir up the fourth Reich. While WJL is certainly entitled to this opinion, it's frighteningly narrowminded and a little misguided.
From WJL's quote we can make a number of inferences.
WJL...
-believes there can be no other interpretation of the Bible than his or her own
-believes that all who support tolerance have and promote a "homosexual agenda"
-believes that supporting the rights of others = persecution of WJL
And, as expected, here's why I believe WJL is wrong. First of all, WJL assumes that "interpreting" the Bible in any way other than WJL's is wrong. What WJL doesn't account for is the fact that the two versions of the Bible she* mentions are, in fact, interpretations of the book which had already been interpreted several times prior to that. Guesses as to the original meaning are just that and anything other than general guidance from the Book, interpreted by humans, is bound to be flawed as a result. Add to that the fact that many of those interpretations came at the behest of kings whose agendas were made clear to the interpreters and the threat of punishment for any of them who failed to incorporate those agendas made just as clear, and the distance from God's word to what we have today is greater than the years. (*to avoid our language's awkward lack of a non-gender singular personal pronoun I'm going to assume WJL is a woman henceforth)
So the interpretation argument is flawed already, but as long as we're on it, let's take a closer look at the particular interpretation that WJL seems to have come up with. I'll have to assume that WJL would mention Sodom and Gomorrah as "evidence" that homosexuality is a sin. Again, this is a pretty specific interpretation, not general guidance, thus it's slippery at best. In any event, the Bibles to which WJL refers say nothing of the sort regarding Sodom. Nothing that specific anyway. In fact, if anything, those Bibles promote rape by portraying Lot as a good guy who offers his daughters up to appease the mob (offering them to be raped.) Then later in Isaiah (1:10 & 3:9) and Ezekiel (16:49) those Bibles tell us that social injustice and oppression of the poor were the reasons Sodom was destroyed, not the homosexual intentions of the mob and their treatment of Lot's guests. Even Jesus tells us that Sodom was destroyed because of inhospitality (Luke 10:12). So there's no indication whatsoever that the city was destroyed due to homosexuality, but rather for the way everyone there except Lot treated guests. Benevolent treatment of guests was kind of big thing back in the day. It's a general idea that can be safely interpreted since it is supported by other sources of history. It was almost like they were tolerant of travellers. More than that, they were good Samaritans to them. Yeah, they were more than tolerant to them. But who would ever read that in the Bible!
So where else might WJL be getting her ideas about homosexuality? Well, there's the oft cited story of Leviticus (18:22) which clearly instructs us... "Do not lie with a man as with a woman; that is detestable. If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands." How much clearer can you get than that?! The only problem there is that just about all Christians ignore the rest of Leviticus because it goes on to add some other crazy rules like...
men shouldn't cut their hair, don't eat meat with blood in it, don't eat rabbit or shellfish, don't have sex during menstruation, don't cross breed cattle, and don't wear clothes made out of more than one material. One can only guess at what agendas may have been furthered by such rules, but we're all pretty comfortable ignoring them today. So why are we all so comfortable ignoring the bulk of Leviticus as crazy, outdated, or whatever excuse we make to ignore it, but that part about the man and the woman and the man... well, that part's serious man! Again, we could take general advice from the Book, but when it comes to specific interpretations, or specific directions on what to do and how to do it, we're just asking for trouble.
But maybe it's clearer somewhere else... Paul, the apostle, he was pretty clear about it. He said it was unnatural for women to be with women and men to be with men. Of course he also said men should have SHORT hair (he should have consulted Leviticus!) and women will only be redeemed through childbirth - so Hillary Clinton is going to Heaven but Mother Theresa is not?! WOW, I wonder why WJL left that interpretation out?
Even Paul's charges aren't as clear as they seem. People who have spent their lives studying the Bible as theologians and as literary scholars can only agree that some of the words interpreted these days that Paul supposedly used can't be interpreted today. In my own trusted Revised Standard Version,1Corinthianss 6:9 specifically mentions "homosexuals" among those not inheriting the kingdom of God. There's a footnote with it though that says, "two Greek words are rendered by this expression." Now I know that WJL doesn't specifically mention the RSV, but this footnote doesn't even come close to explaining that the alleged original text from which this was interpreted used the word, "arsenokoitai" instead of the word "homosexuals." Did you get that out of the footnote? Do you even read footnotes?
Here's what the KJV says in the same verse: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..." Hey wait a minute there WJL... KJV doesn't say anything about homosexuals! But it does suggest that Ghandi and maybe even Jimmy Carter ain't goin' to Heaven! (C'mon, admit it, he was pretty effeminate... for a president anyway.)
And here's the NIV interpretation: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders..." Well, at least they put the homos back in. Apparently straight female prostitutes who don't overcharge and make correct change are OK though. (see how much fun strict, detailed interpretations can be!)
And here's the crazy part... while that original word, arsenokoitai, has been interpreted by some Biblical scholars as maybe meaning homosexual, most think it referred to "sacred prostitutes" or the young virile men who "worked" in fertility temples at a time when Christianity was competing with the Greek gods for popularity. It was the non-Christian Greeks who promoted the fertility temples. Here's how they worked: Seemingly barren women visited the fertility temple, "worshipped" these young virile men, and lo and behold, came home preggers! Is it any wonder that their husbands and Paul thought these guys might not represent the ideal lifestyle and should be considered bad, bad men? It's Orwell's Ministry of Love gaining a foothold in the ancient world. Paul put a stop to it, but his motive for stopping it didn't have anything to do with homosexuality.
There are other circumstances throughout the Bible that can be laced together to suggest that not only were homosexuals tolerated, but even destined to inherit the Earth. Examinations of the word "naked" indicate that it meant more than just "naked" and lots of people were naked together that don't fit WJL's interpretation. Various interpretations of specific words can change the entire meaning of a passage and even how several passages work together. Hence the danger of word by word interpretations, or the use of specific words to prove any specific meaning. These extended interpretations are fun and perhaps will appear in another installment, but this short story's already become long so let's move on.
The second inference I made based on WJL's quote is that if one is tolerant, one promotes a homosexual agenda. This probably isn't even really an inference since WJL, having left no wiggle room, practically states this. This one will be a little tougher to shoot down because I'm not even sure what a homosexual agenda is, so I'll follow my advice and stay general. In spite of all of WJL's assumptions about the Bible, one general idea that most Biblical scholars, casual Christians and even atheists agree on is this: Jesus was the poster boy for tolerance. God wasn't. The God in the Old Testament was vindictive and vengeful, but Jesus is definitely tolerant. There's little question about that. The guy didn't even protest when he was wrongly convicted and forced to carry his own crucifix up the mountain. Heck, in Mel Gibson's version of it, he put up with some severe beatings on the way. That's pretty tolerant. So... if I may borrow WJL's own premises, Jesus was a one man "tolerance group." Tolerance groups have homosexual agendas. Therefore Jesus had a homosexual agenda and should thus be forced to read the KJV or the NIV in their "entirey" until He realizes the error of His ways. Moving on...
I don't even know WJL. I'm pretty sure I've never persecuted WJL in spite of being quick to stand for others' rights. Having grown up close to there, I'd go so far as to say that living in Shaker Heights these days is actually a pretty good insulator against most forms of persecution with the possible exception of self-imposed persecution. Here's how that might work: A person convinces herself that only a strictly defined, extremely limited set of behaviors is right and everything else is wrong. In fear of falling on the wrong side of that line, the person chooses to live in fear of everything different from herself and thus limits social and public interaction as a result. When this person realizes what a crappy life such narrowmindedness has created, she grows bitter and seeks out someone or something to blame. Hey, why not mankind in general what with all its tolerance and deviant behavior! Only that's not really persecution. It's fear driven ignorance-induced self exile. So don't blame the rest of us for your choices WJL! It's Jesus's fault. Cuz by WJL-logic, Jesus, with his tolerance and homosexual agenda has persecuted WJL. If the rest of us apply the old WWJD test, we too should persecute WJL. It would be "hypocratical" of a Bible thumper like WJL to complain about that, wouldn't it?
NOTE: I was really lazy in not listing some of my sources for this info. There's no excuse, but it's only cuz there were so many and I don't remember which ones were which... I got rolling and couldn't stop! I used a number of online Bible sites for the NIV and KJV text, my own paper copy of the RSV gifted to me, per the inscription, by my Aunt Betty in 1970, and several results of Googling "biblical interpretation," "gays in the Bible," and any other combination of WJL's main ideas I could think of... I didn't just make this stuff up! And I teach people how to determine the validity of a web page. I'm not asking you to trust me. I wouldn't do that but these are the closest trails I can send you down to verify on your own. If you have an issue with anything specific, I'll look it up for you and post it.
Type at ya later,
Luth
I was browsing 'blogs, procrastinating the mountain of work I brought home for the weekend when I ran across one of those political quizzes that promises to tell you if you're liberal or conservative... so I took it... no surprises, and while looking at my results and those of the last 10 quizzees, just as I thought there wasn't anything to get fired up about, I found WJL- from-Shaker-Heights,-OH's quote.
The spelling above is as it appeared on the site. In fact, I just cut and pasted it here from OKCupid.com... where I took the quiz. That should be the first indication that something is wrong with WJL, but it's far from the only indication. As a trained grader of student writing, I have learned to look for the potential, not the mechanical flaws, so I can overlook and make the best of the poor spelling and punctuation WJL uses. It's the potential that frightens me. WJL seems to have the potential to stir up the fourth Reich. While WJL is certainly entitled to this opinion, it's frighteningly narrowminded and a little misguided.
From WJL's quote we can make a number of inferences.
WJL...
-believes there can be no other interpretation of the Bible than his or her own
-believes that all who support tolerance have and promote a "homosexual agenda"
-believes that supporting the rights of others = persecution of WJL
And, as expected, here's why I believe WJL is wrong. First of all, WJL assumes that "interpreting" the Bible in any way other than WJL's is wrong. What WJL doesn't account for is the fact that the two versions of the Bible she* mentions are, in fact, interpretations of the book which had already been interpreted several times prior to that. Guesses as to the original meaning are just that and anything other than general guidance from the Book, interpreted by humans, is bound to be flawed as a result. Add to that the fact that many of those interpretations came at the behest of kings whose agendas were made clear to the interpreters and the threat of punishment for any of them who failed to incorporate those agendas made just as clear, and the distance from God's word to what we have today is greater than the years. (*to avoid our language's awkward lack of a non-gender singular personal pronoun I'm going to assume WJL is a woman henceforth)
So the interpretation argument is flawed already, but as long as we're on it, let's take a closer look at the particular interpretation that WJL seems to have come up with. I'll have to assume that WJL would mention Sodom and Gomorrah as "evidence" that homosexuality is a sin. Again, this is a pretty specific interpretation, not general guidance, thus it's slippery at best. In any event, the Bibles to which WJL refers say nothing of the sort regarding Sodom. Nothing that specific anyway. In fact, if anything, those Bibles promote rape by portraying Lot as a good guy who offers his daughters up to appease the mob (offering them to be raped.) Then later in Isaiah (1:10 & 3:9) and Ezekiel (16:49) those Bibles tell us that social injustice and oppression of the poor were the reasons Sodom was destroyed, not the homosexual intentions of the mob and their treatment of Lot's guests. Even Jesus tells us that Sodom was destroyed because of inhospitality (Luke 10:12). So there's no indication whatsoever that the city was destroyed due to homosexuality, but rather for the way everyone there except Lot treated guests. Benevolent treatment of guests was kind of big thing back in the day. It's a general idea that can be safely interpreted since it is supported by other sources of history. It was almost like they were tolerant of travellers. More than that, they were good Samaritans to them. Yeah, they were more than tolerant to them. But who would ever read that in the Bible!
So where else might WJL be getting her ideas about homosexuality? Well, there's the oft cited story of Leviticus (18:22) which clearly instructs us... "Do not lie with a man as with a woman; that is detestable. If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands." How much clearer can you get than that?! The only problem there is that just about all Christians ignore the rest of Leviticus because it goes on to add some other crazy rules like...
men shouldn't cut their hair, don't eat meat with blood in it, don't eat rabbit or shellfish, don't have sex during menstruation, don't cross breed cattle, and don't wear clothes made out of more than one material. One can only guess at what agendas may have been furthered by such rules, but we're all pretty comfortable ignoring them today. So why are we all so comfortable ignoring the bulk of Leviticus as crazy, outdated, or whatever excuse we make to ignore it, but that part about the man and the woman and the man... well, that part's serious man! Again, we could take general advice from the Book, but when it comes to specific interpretations, or specific directions on what to do and how to do it, we're just asking for trouble.
But maybe it's clearer somewhere else... Paul, the apostle, he was pretty clear about it. He said it was unnatural for women to be with women and men to be with men. Of course he also said men should have SHORT hair (he should have consulted Leviticus!) and women will only be redeemed through childbirth - so Hillary Clinton is going to Heaven but Mother Theresa is not?! WOW, I wonder why WJL left that interpretation out?
Even Paul's charges aren't as clear as they seem. People who have spent their lives studying the Bible as theologians and as literary scholars can only agree that some of the words interpreted these days that Paul supposedly used can't be interpreted today. In my own trusted Revised Standard Version,1Corinthianss 6:9 specifically mentions "homosexuals" among those not inheriting the kingdom of God. There's a footnote with it though that says, "two Greek words are rendered by this expression." Now I know that WJL doesn't specifically mention the RSV, but this footnote doesn't even come close to explaining that the alleged original text from which this was interpreted used the word, "arsenokoitai" instead of the word "homosexuals." Did you get that out of the footnote? Do you even read footnotes?
Here's what the KJV says in the same verse: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..." Hey wait a minute there WJL... KJV doesn't say anything about homosexuals! But it does suggest that Ghandi and maybe even Jimmy Carter ain't goin' to Heaven! (C'mon, admit it, he was pretty effeminate... for a president anyway.)
And here's the NIV interpretation: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders..." Well, at least they put the homos back in. Apparently straight female prostitutes who don't overcharge and make correct change are OK though. (see how much fun strict, detailed interpretations can be!)
And here's the crazy part... while that original word, arsenokoitai, has been interpreted by some Biblical scholars as maybe meaning homosexual, most think it referred to "sacred prostitutes" or the young virile men who "worked" in fertility temples at a time when Christianity was competing with the Greek gods for popularity. It was the non-Christian Greeks who promoted the fertility temples. Here's how they worked: Seemingly barren women visited the fertility temple, "worshipped" these young virile men, and lo and behold, came home preggers! Is it any wonder that their husbands and Paul thought these guys might not represent the ideal lifestyle and should be considered bad, bad men? It's Orwell's Ministry of Love gaining a foothold in the ancient world. Paul put a stop to it, but his motive for stopping it didn't have anything to do with homosexuality.
There are other circumstances throughout the Bible that can be laced together to suggest that not only were homosexuals tolerated, but even destined to inherit the Earth. Examinations of the word "naked" indicate that it meant more than just "naked" and lots of people were naked together that don't fit WJL's interpretation. Various interpretations of specific words can change the entire meaning of a passage and even how several passages work together. Hence the danger of word by word interpretations, or the use of specific words to prove any specific meaning. These extended interpretations are fun and perhaps will appear in another installment, but this short story's already become long so let's move on.
The second inference I made based on WJL's quote is that if one is tolerant, one promotes a homosexual agenda. This probably isn't even really an inference since WJL, having left no wiggle room, practically states this. This one will be a little tougher to shoot down because I'm not even sure what a homosexual agenda is, so I'll follow my advice and stay general. In spite of all of WJL's assumptions about the Bible, one general idea that most Biblical scholars, casual Christians and even atheists agree on is this: Jesus was the poster boy for tolerance. God wasn't. The God in the Old Testament was vindictive and vengeful, but Jesus is definitely tolerant. There's little question about that. The guy didn't even protest when he was wrongly convicted and forced to carry his own crucifix up the mountain. Heck, in Mel Gibson's version of it, he put up with some severe beatings on the way. That's pretty tolerant. So... if I may borrow WJL's own premises, Jesus was a one man "tolerance group." Tolerance groups have homosexual agendas. Therefore Jesus had a homosexual agenda and should thus be forced to read the KJV or the NIV in their "entirey" until He realizes the error of His ways. Moving on...
I don't even know WJL. I'm pretty sure I've never persecuted WJL in spite of being quick to stand for others' rights. Having grown up close to there, I'd go so far as to say that living in Shaker Heights these days is actually a pretty good insulator against most forms of persecution with the possible exception of self-imposed persecution. Here's how that might work: A person convinces herself that only a strictly defined, extremely limited set of behaviors is right and everything else is wrong. In fear of falling on the wrong side of that line, the person chooses to live in fear of everything different from herself and thus limits social and public interaction as a result. When this person realizes what a crappy life such narrowmindedness has created, she grows bitter and seeks out someone or something to blame. Hey, why not mankind in general what with all its tolerance and deviant behavior! Only that's not really persecution. It's fear driven ignorance-induced self exile. So don't blame the rest of us for your choices WJL! It's Jesus's fault. Cuz by WJL-logic, Jesus, with his tolerance and homosexual agenda has persecuted WJL. If the rest of us apply the old WWJD test, we too should persecute WJL. It would be "hypocratical" of a Bible thumper like WJL to complain about that, wouldn't it?
NOTE: I was really lazy in not listing some of my sources for this info. There's no excuse, but it's only cuz there were so many and I don't remember which ones were which... I got rolling and couldn't stop! I used a number of online Bible sites for the NIV and KJV text, my own paper copy of the RSV gifted to me, per the inscription, by my Aunt Betty in 1970, and several results of Googling "biblical interpretation," "gays in the Bible," and any other combination of WJL's main ideas I could think of... I didn't just make this stuff up! And I teach people how to determine the validity of a web page. I'm not asking you to trust me. I wouldn't do that but these are the closest trails I can send you down to verify on your own. If you have an issue with anything specific, I'll look it up for you and post it.
Type at ya later,
Luth
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Comments-Earle, facts and fiction, awards
If I didn't want to be dragged down to this level, I wouldn't have a 'blog. Since the anonymous comments keep piling up and many won't bother clicking to see them, let's pull them onto the main page and air them out a little. (they're really starting to stink!)
First of all, I never tried "to defend Ronnie Earle" as a morally righteous dude. What I said was an article in Esquire claims that both Republicans and Democrats in Texas have said he was a morally righteous dude throughout his career. (that's at least as credible as Dereliction of Duty.) The Bush administration has made positive comments about him in the past and Texas Republicans loved him when he went after Clinton fundraisers. Now they're crying foul. So if he's coming after you he's a party zealot but when he's after your opponents, he's a good guy. That's BS and there's no disguising it. Partisan BS.
Here's a list of notable indictments, in no particular order, brought by Travis County(TX) DA Ronnie Earle:
-Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox (Democrat) convicted
-Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Gilbert Serna (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Lane Denton (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Betty Denton (Democrat) convicted
-U.S. Senator Kay Baily Hutchison (Republican) charges dropped by DA (yeah, that was Earle)
-Texas Land Commissioner Gary Mauro (Democrat) acquitted
-Texas voter registrar Marco Gomes (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Charles Staniswallis (Republican) convicted... pleaded guilty
-Texas Treasurer Warren Harding (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Mike Martin (Republican) convicted... pleaded guilty
-Texas Representative Gene Jones (Democrat) convicted
-County Commissioner Bob Honts (Democrat) convicted
You're right... the evidence is there... the facts support it... there's clearly a pattern to the people Earle goes after. They've broken the law! This is a matter of public record... ie the facts. Ignorance of them in favor of the opinion of one's party, an opinion NOT supported by facts, is the highest form of stupidity.
Re: justification for war... so we're back to the WMD's eh? Cuz when we found there were none, the President's story quickly changed to "Democratizing the Middle East," and when the futility of that was pointed out, it became "Ousting Saddam 'cuz he's an evil dictator." Nevermind the fact that there are plenty of evil dictators all over the world committing far greater crimes in larger numbers and who were not surrounded and held in check by the U.S. and our allies back when we still had allies. Regardless, we got him. Then it was "get 'em over there so they can't get us over here." But the "us" included England and the fight came to them, so that wasn't working. So now it's "The War on Terror," which, by definition is an eternal war and one that is not based in Iraq any more than it is based in Seattle or San Francisco or Cleveland. So tell me one more time one clear, rational justification? Which one of these stories is it? I agree we can't pull out now, but we shouldn't have gone in the first place without a more consistent argument. Shut up and keep reading...
Re: bipartisan support for the war from Congress - the left may have forgotten that Congress (that's a Republican majority Congress by the way) shirked their responsibility for declaring war, but I haven't. That's not the President's fault. Granted, point taken. However, the War Powers act of 1973 and the clearly intended Constitutional restraint (Article II gives the Pres no power to declare war) still apply even after Congress hands their responsibility to the President. There still has to be an imminent threat to the American people. There has to be a threat to our liberty. When referring to the President's powers regarding war, the War Powers Act says, "involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." (U.S. Code, Title 50, Ch. 30) If involvement in hostilities was that clearly indicated, half the nation wouldn't be questioning that very decision right now. The President made the final decision after being given the approval to do so by Congress. So yes, this Republican Congress, with the help of many Democrats including John Kerry and John Edwards, blew the intent of our constitution by NOT declaring war and instead giving that ability to the President, but the result of that is that the decision came down to one man - W.
Technically, since Congress approved it, this wasn't a War Powers Act situation anyway, but both that act and the Constitution clearly state the necessity for imminent threat. Passing that responsibility on to the President was a bad move on Congress's part, but its result was that it was the President's decision that sent us to war, ignoring the imminent threat requirement. This war was the President's decision. It has cost us billions of dollars, as many as 25,000 lives (see Body Count links for source info), and has left our military drastically unprepared for another major regional conflict. You can't spin that away on anyone else.
Re: Ronnie Earle's permission to record grand jury hearings - How is that any different than impeaching a sitting President on CNN?! I just don't get it. Why is it only so wrong when a Democrat does it?
Re: Ronnie Earle delivering indictments to different grand juries until he finds one that agrees with him - Tom Delay would say "that's neither illegal nor unprecedented," but I'm sure you know that already. It's not unprecedented... sort of like channeling funds through different offices until earnest attempts to track them are thwarted. Or no... it's not really like that at all. Cuz see, pursuing an indictment, which still gives the accused a day in court, is a DA's JOB whereas covering up the source of funds, which only hides the identity of who is buying a seat, is NOT the job of a Representative. In fact, it's against the law. Not unprecedented... what a great line. Kenneth Starr pursued fraudulent investment charges against the Clintons through a number of dead end venues before the Republican Congress agreed to air his concerns... so I guess "not unprecedented" is an adequate response.
Anonymous's suggestion that Earle's "only happy ending" is having Delay's face on TV with the word "indicted" under it is also not unprecedented. I recall seeing John Kerry's face on TV with words below it questioning his war record in spite of the fact that he was able to produce a DD214 - proof provided by the very government that brought him down. As I recall, that government administration was led by a man who still hasn't provided the same proof, of which every servicemember is repeatedly told to keep a safe copy, and yet that President still managed to avoid answering any further questions about his sketchy fulfillment of his cushy national guard obligations. Kerry provided the proof of his honorable discharge and his awards and was still questioned. W provided dental records?! and the questions stopped. Liberal media my rear! While we're at it, I recall seeing President Clinton's face on TV with the word "impeached" under it... the special prosecutor's happy ending... not unprecedented. Was there ever a picture of his face with the word "acquitted" under it? Liberal media my rear. Thank goodness for Tom Delay and his great quotes to put the proper spin on all of this.
And finally, comments about awards I've received per my own DD214 - The only one at the forefront of my mind right now is the small arms marksmanship award. That's right, I'm a liberal who can shoot pretty well. Well enough to get that particular award anyway. It may surprise many to know that I own and use a variety of guns. I even have one on my Christmas list this year. (I'm still undecided between the Marlin or the Winchester, but I want a 30-30. It was my first rifle, but my dad traded it for a shotgun when I was still too young to have much of a say in that so if anyone has any constructive advice on that dilemma, bring it on.) I support the right of others to own guns as well. I also support sensible legislation to prevent some of my idiot friends from owning fully automatic assault rifles because by the time they realized how stupid they're acting, the entire neighborhood could be mowed down. I don't believe the NRA's slippery slope argument that sensible gun legislation will lead to a ban on all private ownership. Furthermore, I believe anyone who subscribes to that particular fallacy should also believe that the same slippery slope exists with laws that discriminate against gays. After all, by that kind of logic if we ban gays from anything, the next logical step will be laws governing how we can or cannot have heterosexual sex. Some of those idiot friends, based on the stories I've heard, should be more concerned with that than with gun laws!
Anyhoo, keep those comments coming. They're better entertainment than the letters to the editor in my local paper. I used to be amazed at how ignorant some people are. Now what amazes me is just how MANY people are THAT ignorant!
Luth
First of all, I never tried "to defend Ronnie Earle" as a morally righteous dude. What I said was an article in Esquire claims that both Republicans and Democrats in Texas have said he was a morally righteous dude throughout his career. (that's at least as credible as Dereliction of Duty.) The Bush administration has made positive comments about him in the past and Texas Republicans loved him when he went after Clinton fundraisers. Now they're crying foul. So if he's coming after you he's a party zealot but when he's after your opponents, he's a good guy. That's BS and there's no disguising it. Partisan BS.
Here's a list of notable indictments, in no particular order, brought by Travis County(TX) DA Ronnie Earle:
-Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox (Democrat) convicted
-Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Gilbert Serna (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Lane Denton (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Betty Denton (Democrat) convicted
-U.S. Senator Kay Baily Hutchison (Republican) charges dropped by DA (yeah, that was Earle)
-Texas Land Commissioner Gary Mauro (Democrat) acquitted
-Texas voter registrar Marco Gomes (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Charles Staniswallis (Republican) convicted... pleaded guilty
-Texas Treasurer Warren Harding (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Mike Martin (Republican) convicted... pleaded guilty
-Texas Representative Gene Jones (Democrat) convicted
-County Commissioner Bob Honts (Democrat) convicted
You're right... the evidence is there... the facts support it... there's clearly a pattern to the people Earle goes after. They've broken the law! This is a matter of public record... ie the facts. Ignorance of them in favor of the opinion of one's party, an opinion NOT supported by facts, is the highest form of stupidity.
Re: justification for war... so we're back to the WMD's eh? Cuz when we found there were none, the President's story quickly changed to "Democratizing the Middle East," and when the futility of that was pointed out, it became "Ousting Saddam 'cuz he's an evil dictator." Nevermind the fact that there are plenty of evil dictators all over the world committing far greater crimes in larger numbers and who were not surrounded and held in check by the U.S. and our allies back when we still had allies. Regardless, we got him. Then it was "get 'em over there so they can't get us over here." But the "us" included England and the fight came to them, so that wasn't working. So now it's "The War on Terror," which, by definition is an eternal war and one that is not based in Iraq any more than it is based in Seattle or San Francisco or Cleveland. So tell me one more time one clear, rational justification? Which one of these stories is it? I agree we can't pull out now, but we shouldn't have gone in the first place without a more consistent argument. Shut up and keep reading...
Re: bipartisan support for the war from Congress - the left may have forgotten that Congress (that's a Republican majority Congress by the way) shirked their responsibility for declaring war, but I haven't. That's not the President's fault. Granted, point taken. However, the War Powers act of 1973 and the clearly intended Constitutional restraint (Article II gives the Pres no power to declare war) still apply even after Congress hands their responsibility to the President. There still has to be an imminent threat to the American people. There has to be a threat to our liberty. When referring to the President's powers regarding war, the War Powers Act says, "involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." (U.S. Code, Title 50, Ch. 30) If involvement in hostilities was that clearly indicated, half the nation wouldn't be questioning that very decision right now. The President made the final decision after being given the approval to do so by Congress. So yes, this Republican Congress, with the help of many Democrats including John Kerry and John Edwards, blew the intent of our constitution by NOT declaring war and instead giving that ability to the President, but the result of that is that the decision came down to one man - W.
Technically, since Congress approved it, this wasn't a War Powers Act situation anyway, but both that act and the Constitution clearly state the necessity for imminent threat. Passing that responsibility on to the President was a bad move on Congress's part, but its result was that it was the President's decision that sent us to war, ignoring the imminent threat requirement. This war was the President's decision. It has cost us billions of dollars, as many as 25,000 lives (see Body Count links for source info), and has left our military drastically unprepared for another major regional conflict. You can't spin that away on anyone else.
Re: Ronnie Earle's permission to record grand jury hearings - How is that any different than impeaching a sitting President on CNN?! I just don't get it. Why is it only so wrong when a Democrat does it?
Re: Ronnie Earle delivering indictments to different grand juries until he finds one that agrees with him - Tom Delay would say "that's neither illegal nor unprecedented," but I'm sure you know that already. It's not unprecedented... sort of like channeling funds through different offices until earnest attempts to track them are thwarted. Or no... it's not really like that at all. Cuz see, pursuing an indictment, which still gives the accused a day in court, is a DA's JOB whereas covering up the source of funds, which only hides the identity of who is buying a seat, is NOT the job of a Representative. In fact, it's against the law. Not unprecedented... what a great line. Kenneth Starr pursued fraudulent investment charges against the Clintons through a number of dead end venues before the Republican Congress agreed to air his concerns... so I guess "not unprecedented" is an adequate response.
Anonymous's suggestion that Earle's "only happy ending" is having Delay's face on TV with the word "indicted" under it is also not unprecedented. I recall seeing John Kerry's face on TV with words below it questioning his war record in spite of the fact that he was able to produce a DD214 - proof provided by the very government that brought him down. As I recall, that government administration was led by a man who still hasn't provided the same proof, of which every servicemember is repeatedly told to keep a safe copy, and yet that President still managed to avoid answering any further questions about his sketchy fulfillment of his cushy national guard obligations. Kerry provided the proof of his honorable discharge and his awards and was still questioned. W provided dental records?! and the questions stopped. Liberal media my rear! While we're at it, I recall seeing President Clinton's face on TV with the word "impeached" under it... the special prosecutor's happy ending... not unprecedented. Was there ever a picture of his face with the word "acquitted" under it? Liberal media my rear. Thank goodness for Tom Delay and his great quotes to put the proper spin on all of this.
And finally, comments about awards I've received per my own DD214 - The only one at the forefront of my mind right now is the small arms marksmanship award. That's right, I'm a liberal who can shoot pretty well. Well enough to get that particular award anyway. It may surprise many to know that I own and use a variety of guns. I even have one on my Christmas list this year. (I'm still undecided between the Marlin or the Winchester, but I want a 30-30. It was my first rifle, but my dad traded it for a shotgun when I was still too young to have much of a say in that so if anyone has any constructive advice on that dilemma, bring it on.) I support the right of others to own guns as well. I also support sensible legislation to prevent some of my idiot friends from owning fully automatic assault rifles because by the time they realized how stupid they're acting, the entire neighborhood could be mowed down. I don't believe the NRA's slippery slope argument that sensible gun legislation will lead to a ban on all private ownership. Furthermore, I believe anyone who subscribes to that particular fallacy should also believe that the same slippery slope exists with laws that discriminate against gays. After all, by that kind of logic if we ban gays from anything, the next logical step will be laws governing how we can or cannot have heterosexual sex. Some of those idiot friends, based on the stories I've heard, should be more concerned with that than with gun laws!
Anyhoo, keep those comments coming. They're better entertainment than the letters to the editor in my local paper. I used to be amazed at how ignorant some people are. Now what amazes me is just how MANY people are THAT ignorant!
Luth
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Relief in the form of a DD214
I recently received, by regular mail, my third copy of the Department of Defense Form 214 - Separation from Active Military Service. I received the first one upon completion of basic training and technical school back in 1987 (yeah, I'm old). The last two came as the result of my desert vacations. I'll always remember the form number because they pound it into your head throughout basic training. Any serviceman who ever completed basic training has been told at least 45 times (once per day) to keep a copy of it in safe deposit box because it is your record of discharge from the military.
What I discovered on this particular copy is that it also verifies every award I've ever received. The funny thing about these awards is, I didn't even know about a couple of them. I didn't put myself in for them and some of them were never formally presented to me so I never knew I had them. That's just how it works, the service branch keeps the record then sends you a copy when you separate. And all servicemembers are told to make sure they keep a copy just in case they'd ever have reason to prove they satisfactorily fulfilled their obligation. It was kind of cool seeing my time and my awards listed on this very important form that verified my service and that I knew to keep a copy of in a safe place.
So yeah, it's a pretty cool form. In a little over a year, I'll also receive my 20-year letter. This very important letter verifies that I have completed 20 years of qualifying service in the Air National Guard. This too, I've been told over and over, is a very important letter to keep in a safe place. I would guess that only an idiot would ever have any difficulty proving his or her service in the Air National Guard since the importance of all these forms and letters is just pounded into your head throughout your career. Anyone who doesn't have one, probably has a questionable service record. I think employers assume that you were discharged under other than honorable conditions if you list military service on your resume and can't produce one of these forms. In my experience, employers don't accept ID photos or, say dental records. They want to see the DD214 or your separation letter.
John Kerry has a DD214. I have a DD214. My little brother even has a copy of his from back in the early 90's and he only did a three year hitch!
Have a great weekend!
Luth
What I discovered on this particular copy is that it also verifies every award I've ever received. The funny thing about these awards is, I didn't even know about a couple of them. I didn't put myself in for them and some of them were never formally presented to me so I never knew I had them. That's just how it works, the service branch keeps the record then sends you a copy when you separate. And all servicemembers are told to make sure they keep a copy just in case they'd ever have reason to prove they satisfactorily fulfilled their obligation. It was kind of cool seeing my time and my awards listed on this very important form that verified my service and that I knew to keep a copy of in a safe place.
So yeah, it's a pretty cool form. In a little over a year, I'll also receive my 20-year letter. This very important letter verifies that I have completed 20 years of qualifying service in the Air National Guard. This too, I've been told over and over, is a very important letter to keep in a safe place. I would guess that only an idiot would ever have any difficulty proving his or her service in the Air National Guard since the importance of all these forms and letters is just pounded into your head throughout your career. Anyone who doesn't have one, probably has a questionable service record. I think employers assume that you were discharged under other than honorable conditions if you list military service on your resume and can't produce one of these forms. In my experience, employers don't accept ID photos or, say dental records. They want to see the DD214 or your separation letter.
John Kerry has a DD214. I have a DD214. My little brother even has a copy of his from back in the early 90's and he only did a three year hitch!
Have a great weekend!
Luth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)