I did get an "answer" (of sorts) to my question about why people believe homosexuality is a choice. Here it is (edited a bit for content):
OMG! EVERYONE is born HETEROSEXUAL . . . . That's why sexual orientation cannot be changed - this has been an ACCEPTED FACT for thousands of years! The CHOICE to deviate from one's sexual orientation is always a CHOICE! What is so hard to understand about the theory at least?!
Obviously, the claim that "everyone is born heterosexual" is simply an statement of faith, not fact. Even if it were true (which it is not), the assertion that "this has been an accepted fact for thousands of years" would add nothing. A flat earth and a geocentric universe were also accepted facts for thousands of years. But, like any statement of faith, this one is hard to respond to rationally, so I won't try.
Back to the Democrats and "traditional values."
In my last post, I identified two problems that the Democrats have with "people of faith": (1) a massive communication gap and (2) a failure to make "Christian Values" work for them.
I think that a possible answer to the second of these problems may have been well summed up by a friend, who observed that: "The values of the Republicans are those of the Old Testament, while those of the Democrats are those of the New." (If this observation was not original with my friend I apologize. It's the only place I have heard it).
To illustrate the truth of this, has anyone read Joshua recently? If not, here's and excerpt courtesy of http://bible.gospelcom.net.
Joshua 8
Ai Destroyed
1 Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city." . . . . 22 The men of the ambush also came out of the city against them, so that they were caught in the middle, with Israelites on both sides. Israel cut them down, leaving them neither survivors nor fugitives. 23 But they took the king of Ai alive and brought him to Joshua. 24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day-all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua. 28 So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day. 29 He hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take his body from the tree and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day.
It goes on and on like this. Does this sound like the Bushites or what?
Contrast that with, say, the Sermon on the Mount:
Matthew 5
The Beatitudes
1 Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them saying: 3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
I am not a religious person, and am no expert on the Bible by any means, but it does seem to me that the contrast between these excerpts does capture the core difference between the present-day Republican Party and its opponents. This will not convince the 'theofascists', of course. But I do not think they are really all that big a bloc anyway. The battle is for the hearts and minds of the people of goodwill -- my brothers-in-law. (See Previous post). And, the contrast between these excerpts does have the potential to provide such people with the link that is currently missing between their faith and their politics.
I also think that this may help with the communication problem. I am NOT suggesting here that the Democrats should wear their faith on their sleeves. But I am suggesting that they can and should couch their arguments in terms of principles that resonate with New Testament ideals: "I am in favor of tolerance and acceptance. That leads me to believe that we should accept people whose life styles are different from mine and yours and to assure that they are afforded the same basic civil rights as are enjoyed by people like me. I am in favor of peace. That leads me to believe that we must do everything we can to finding an alternative to war. I am in favor of individual liberty, freedom of religion and freedom of expression. That is why I will fight to protect the right of people to express themselves, even when the choose to do do in a way that I find unpleasant, even offensive." And, so on.
I am no "spin-meister", and I am sure there are a lot of people out there who could implement this approach far better than I can. But I do believe that there is, in this approach, at least the possibility of clarifying the core message of the Democrats (or more properly of those against the Bushites) so that it resonates with, rather than alienates people of faith.
6 comments:
"The values of the Republicans are those of the Old Testament, while those of the Democrats are those of the New."Hi, Bill,
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek. And Jesus spoke in Aramaic. So yeah, the analogy rings true. The two parties are speaking two different languages.
Let’s see if the analogy holds true on other old v. new aspects.
From a Biblical translation standpoint, the comparison between Old Testament and New Testament gets even more problematic. I’ll spare you all the details of the multiple translations of texts into Latin, Aramaic, Syriac, Coptic and so forth, before we arrive at today’s English version and its many variants: King James Version, Gideon, etc. The point of this is the values issue can be literally “lost in translation” with indeed a massive communications gap .
Also, Biblical scholars can and do disagree on what a particular word means, not to mention skewing or editing texts to suit a particular POV. Sound like any political parties we know?
Language is a funny thing so I take literal interpretations with a grain of salt. A news reporter once told me that the concrete bumpers or curbs set in parking lot spaces to keep cars from rolling or progressing forward into grassy areas has a specific word in Germany that when literally translated into English means, “sleeping policeman.” And this is today’s German to today’s English. The intent of words is important. Who, pray tell, was around during the first-second century to ask what the intent of the words laid down by the scribes who wrote the New Testament meant? Imagine the discrepancies between ancient languages translated into today’s language. The Bible is still speaking to us as scholarship learns more over time with new discoveries and technology. IMO, most Christian laypersons would label me a heretic for my last statement. NeoCon Dominionists would probably attempt to burn me at the stake.
My guess is 99% of Christians have little knowledge of how the Bible was written. Most evangelicals accept it as the inerrant literal truth. A Christian friend was talking about what “Matthew wrote” in the Bible. I asked, “You are aware that Matthew didn’t write Matthew?” Dumbfounded look stared back at me. I said, “It’s the Gospel according to Matthew. Matthew was long gone by the time the Jews who followed Jesus began scribing the stories told by the apostles.” Her look turned into “my mouth is a hangar prepared for landing.” I went on to say, “Paul, an apostle who never knew Jesus, wrote the earliest recognized books of the New Testament. I think 40-60 B.C.E. is the most widely-accepted dating for Paul’s epistles.” She didn’t have a clue. Now, I’m thinking this lack of awareness of the New Testament, a standard in American life, reminds me of how uninformed Americans are about the facts of the Iraq War, Saddam and AQ. People thinking Bush is better at terrorism must be a matter of faith; certainly it’s not based on facts, from my POV.
Bishop John Shelby Spong writes about the lack of Biblical understanding among the faithful. Clergy often don’t go into too many details if any about the history of the Bible because it upsets congregations. It unnerves church members to think some new discovery or translation revision might actually make the perceived inerrant Scriptures look errant. Changes in interpretation and thus, doctrine (remarrying after divorce, wearing jewelry, gay or female priests, same-sex marriage, etc.) can also cause denominations to split. So consequently, ignorance is bliss. No pastor wants to lose his/her job or members. Mums the word; the politics of truth is too risky. However, in other evangelical circles, dogma is all that matters so the subject doesn’t arise. To be fair, I can’t say what’s true for Catholics, and of course, I have no statistical data to prove my point, only anecdotal evidence. My knowledge base is mostly Protestant from the right and left sides.
Now back to the communication gap: If I say I’m bad, do I mean I’m not good, or do I mean I’m cool? See what I mean? The “cool” meaning for “bad” is 20th century, too.
Another example, though I don’t know if it’s commonly accepted among all scholars: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. -- KJV” “Eye of a needle” was a term, perhaps ancient slang, for the narrow meandering passage that only permitted single-file admittance into a city where upon a tax was paid to gain entry into the marketplace (Jerusalem, I think, but I may be wrong about that specific location). This idiom, “eye of a needle,” sheds a new meaning on the verse, reframing the context of an impossible task (without one of those, “Honey, I Shrunk The Camel” machines) to paying a price for entry. One interpretation: You can’t buy your way into heaven. Again, Bill, your analogy fits within my liberal-minded framework. Conservatives embrace, yea, glorify tradition and resist innovation (Ten Commandments) v. Democrats champion equal access and change (Jesus broke from the Sabbath traditions, Luke 6:9). Some would argue that Republicans are innovators, but I don’t see the dismantling of New Deal programs, such as the privatization of Social Security, as a good thing. The safety nets for the average citizen are being undermined, IMO, by this new brand of “Borrow and Spend” GOPers. I fear the least capable economically will pay a high price. The Ownership Society may be a small but wealthy club of Owners. Is a new form of indentured servitude on the horizon? Gosh, I hope not.
BTW, some historians claim King James was a notorious homosexual. Queen James, some called him. What irony! The King James Version was commissioned by and named after a queer. I have Christian Fundie family members whose heads almost spun off when I’ve shared this history. : )
Now that I’ve bloviated and wandered in thought all over your new blog, I say thanks, Bill.
You’ve made a great start with your blog. Looking forward to more of your posts. You’re in my bookmarks.
--The Gay Millionaire
Hi Gay Millionaire.
Thanks for the comment (and the kind encouragement).
Before I get to that, though, did you have to create/use a Blogger account to comment? If so, that's no good. I gotta figure out if there is a way around that -- or find another hosting service. My son told me he was having trouble posting, and I realized I had inadvertantly limited comments to members in my settings, so I changed that and assumed it would be OK, but when I tired to respond to your comment, they made me sign in, so I figure you must have to to as well. That sucks. You know anything about blogspot and if there is a way around this? It's goofy. As you can tell, there are more than a few bugs to be worked out in my foray into blogging.
Anyway, back to your comment. What do you do for a living? From your last note to me:"I am more well-versed in Biblical studies, the hermeneutics, midrash, and some of the more fun stuff, codes or peshers." What is (are?) hermeneutics. That's one of those words I know I should know, indeed I know I have looked up before, but can never remember. Not much call for me to use it I guess. And midrash? and pesher?
Whatever it is you do, it sounds like I stepped into your wheelhouse with the Bible schtick. Unfortunately, though, any discussion about the Bible is going to be very one-sided: you talk and I listen. While I was raised a Presbyterian, I am not at all a religious person and I haven't really ever read much of the Bible. I stumbled across the Joshua thing during the intermission at a concert at a Church where the only reading choices were the Bible and the hymnal. I opened the Bible and landed at Joshua and strated reading -- and was quickly appalled. When I wrote the post, I had to do a search even to find out where the Sermon on the Mount was.
So, to say I don't take the Bible litterally is putting it mildly. But a lot of people do, I guess -- hard as that is for me to comprehend. Your story about the woman learning that Matthew didn't write Matthew is a case in point.
But, I wasn't really using the OT/NT camparison as an analogy for the communication gap between the Republicans and those that oppose them. The communication gap that concerns me is between the anti-Republicans and the voters. The gap between the Republicans and the anti-Republicans is a values gap.
BTW: I did see your last post to me on the Drum thread. No sweat. I understand. But feel free to write sometime. If you have already checked my academic credentials, I assume you also have m real e-mail. That's why I wasn't too concerned about putting it on the thread: it's already out there big as life. Anyway, spam is a LOT less annnoying to me than the stuff I get on the phone -- the DNC list notwithstanding.
Thanks again for your time and kind words.
TGM:
One more thing. The "Queen James" tidbit was hilarious. I do so love irony -- especially at the expense of narrowmindedness.
And one more, now that I think of it. I'm not sure I agree with you on the Social Security thing. You see, I may be flying under something of a false flag. I consider myself a "classic liberal", but I am not really a "liberal" as that term is (ab)used today. I am, truth be told, more of a libertarian. In principle, privitization is the only option that makes long term sense, although I admit that the transition will be wrenching and horribly expensive and that will have to make sure that we don't leave people with no other avenues out in the cold. But all of that is a subject for another thread.
Bill
Hi, Bill,
Let me answer questions. No, I couldn’t post without creating an account and signing in. I circumvented the entire thing by posting as Anonymous and then adding my signature for you to know who I was.
I find blogspot a bit clunky and sometimes slow but I really don’t know much about it personally. I like Blogger though but I’d probably opt to host it on my own hosting service rather than blogspot and also go with BloggerPro. However, Atrios seems to be different. His site loads pretty quick, quicker than other blogs hosted on blogspot I’ve noticed. He has pop-up comment box, too, which probably makes the main page load fast (Folks like those pop-up threads). My guess he’s worked out something with blogspot, too, because of huge traffic to his blog. Wouldn’t hurt to ask Atrios, if he has the time to reply. Shoot, ask Blogger or the blogspot techies.
Check out bloglines. I’ve been thinking about messing around with blogging. Maybe try a blog on bloglines as a test before I go launching a website. Haven’t decided if I want to push my buttons and get over being public online. Then there’s always the choice as an anonymous pundit, like rudepundit.com only not rude. Of course, when it comes to blogging, it’s the TIME it takes to keep up with it regularly. But, like I said, I’m thinking about it as I look to 2005.
Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation and explanation specifically of the Scriptures, the branch of theology involved in exegesis. As you had explained about interpretative approaches to the Constitution, so are there different approaches to the Bible. On midrash, here’s a decent explanation.
Please remember I am not a Biblical scholar. I’m self-educated and still an avid student (read nerd). But, one aspect of midrash that I do understand is the carrying on of a tradition via re-telling of stories or themes. For example, there’s an Old Testament story about the prophet Elijah’s ascension up to heaven in a chariot of fire in a whirlwind (II Kings 2). In the New Testament, we find the story of Jesus’ ascension. Same traditional theme, different story. Some Biblical scholars think stories about Jesus were concocted to fulfill the midrash tradition (King David lineage, Messiah). Spong speculated that he might have been a prodigy of the rape of the “virgin known as Mary” but who would follow such a Messiah who wasn’t of royal birth? So Jesus’ biography was embellished, mystified, to follow a midrash of worthy of a Messiah. And on peshers, numerous theories abound. One of the more interesting ones is by Barbara Thiering who theorizes that the Book of Revelations was a codebook or pesher on the history of Jesus and the early Church. She’s quite controversial (which I love) especially her book Jesus The Man . Interesting stuff but way too much information for here. I’m already bloviating again.
The N word was hurled around my family so much. I remember as a kid not buying the racial crap (this cannot be what Jesus means?!) so I set aside the God question until my 30s. Because I’m gay, I dived into other religions and alternative views of Bible interpretation and boy, I’m glad I did. Opened my mind to being gay and being spiritually empowered at the same time. I believe in the teachings of Jesus but I wouldn’t call me a Christian, certainly not in the traditional sense. Church of Religious Science is more my bag. I have had some amazing experiences. But maybe you can read about them someday. I’m working on my first novel (And I cannot say what it is, one of those superstitions. Like wearing the same baseball cap for good luck to extend a hitting streak during a World Series.). I have 100 pages written with a movie in mind as well and I’m about ready to start shopping for an agent. Wish me luck. I’ve pre-tested the title, summary, and first 50 pages with avid book readers I know and trust. They think it’s a humdinger. My goal is to write a novel as good as Thomas Harris, who wrote Silence Of The Lambs, one of the best well-written thrillers I’ve ever read. My fiction is just the opposite of my posts. An economy of words that paint pictures in people’s minds is my goal and tougher to do than to just gush... Which I’m doing now.
But, I wasn't really using the OT/NT camparison as an analogy for the communication gap between the Republicans and those that oppose them. The communication gap that concerns me is between the anti-Republicans and the voters. The gap between the Republicans and the anti-Republicans is a values gap.Somehow I missed that nuance but I see what you mean. Doh. I’m assuming your Republican v. anti-Republican is like Christ v. anti-Christ?! Gee, I don’t think that’s was what you meant, but funny, that.
FYI, I voted Ed Clark-Libertarian in 1990. I’m a political mutt. Sheesh, I’m gay. No one party has tried to court my vote. I’m way liberal on civil liberties, some social programs, and conservative on fiscal programs. I like balanced budgets and less government. I like flexibility in changing up things as the times demand. No one party has a lockbox on political wisdom. The GOP is having its day now but it was a minority in the past. I think it’s wise to take the best of everything we have available and blending, synergizing ideas and policies. But that would require unity politics and we are far from that these days.
On Social Security, I do not trust the current GOP one bit. I might be more open to the idea if a Libertarian or Liberal authored the bill, not the Bush Gang. I guess I fall into the anti-Republican category. If Charlie were here I might be tempted to say, anti-Christ.
But all of that is a subject for another thread. I’m looking forward to it.
Say, I’ll look through my bookmarks and see if I have any useful ones on blog technologies and solutions and email them to you.
If you can get an RSS feed on your site, other blogs can automatically download your clips from your new posts. Helps to build traffic, cross-pollinate. Sends you more peeps. : )
Well, I bloviated again. When you get more traffic to your blog, this will be a luxury. You’ll want to limit length to keep your pages lean (around 35k) to load fast despite all those server-buster comments. See. I’m optimistic. The Gay Optimist has a nice ring.
"Queen James" tidbit was hilarious.Wasn’t that fun? Here’s some more irony: King David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, both Old Testament stories that allude to something non-traditional, unless you believe that it’s possible for there to have been a gay pesher. LOL. That’s really sounds funny… gay pesher.
--The Gay Millionaire
My goodness but this is fun -- and addictive. Sooner or later I have to get back to work. But, not yet.
I have only had this blog "up" for a week, and I am already learning that there are some features/limitations about blogspot I don't like. But you can't beat the price, so maybe I'll endure until I find out whether I'm really cut out for this.
The settings in blogspot has a syndication feature (atom) and I have enabled it, but don't know what else I need to do. Did you -- would you -- try to get a feed from here and let me know if it works? If not, I guess I have another question for the techies.
I am also having troubles in the other direction: I have been trying to get RSS feeds from other sites and haven't had any luck. I down-loaded two different feed readers but couldn't get either of them to pick up feeds from sites I know have them. The readers themselves work, since I was getting feeds from all kinds of sites that were imbedded in the reader and that I do no want but that I couldn't find a way to get rid of. So much so that I ended up uninstalling the readers so that it would stop. Yet, when I entered the URL of the site I did want to get a feed from, both readers told me there was no feed available. Tried to get feeds from several different sites with the same result. I haven't had time to figure out what I was doing wrong. (I can't do this full time).
Bloviate all you want. I find it fascinating. And, right now, there aren't enough (any?) other people reading this anyway.
A NOVEL??!!. Good for you. You are my hero. I would love to read whatever you have. Really. But, even if not, keep me posted on the publication. I'll even buy the hard cover version! Are you doing the screen play at the same time? Good luck to you one that one.
Politically, we sound sympatico: very liberal on the social issues, pretty conservative on the fiscal ones. Kerry was the first democratic presidential candidtate I have voted for since 1980. Sadly, you will note, that means I also voted for W the first time around.
my bad, very bad. Here's part of the explanation for the change (posted in the thread from the other night):
Analyst:
Re: "Whether we like it or not, gay rights is a losing issue in America. Absolutely. Economic issues are the only ones that matter."
I don't think that's right. "Interests" are hierarchical. An interest in the middle of the hierarchy will seem to be "the only one that matters" only so long as higher order interets are not percieved to be threatened. For example, through most of the 80's and 90's my "primary interest", at least politically, was the obscene amount of taxes I had to pay. That made me a Republican. That changed over the last four years. For the first time in more than two decades I voted (and campaigned) against my own economic self-interest (i.e. for Kerry)becuase, for the first time in my memory -- which is pretty damn long BTW -- I felt like there were "interests" at risk that I value even more than money: civil rights, civil liberties, real secuirty (rather than Bush's idea of security), separation of church and state, most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, etc. Ironically the same is true of a lot of the so "Christian Right". It is not a new thought to note that, from an economic perspective, many of these people should be voting Democratic. After all, what did Bush do for them? But they didn't. Why? Becuase they too felt like something even more important that money was at stake: their "values". We can make fun of those "values" all we want, but, to the people that have them, they are no less real than my commitement to civil rights and liberties. In short, the economic issues are clearly the only ones that count -- unless and until something even more important is at stake.On the SS security issue: Coincidences are funny. I had a long converstaion with one of my sons yesterday on the wisdom of privitatization, then you raised the same question in your comments. Maybe I'll make that the tpic of my post for today -- if I can find time!
Bill
Two things,
No, your Parentheticals blog is not showing up on my Bloglines feed directory. Sorry.
On Social Security, Mr. Drum has an interesting Smoke & Mirrors post describing what he calls free lunch proposals:
A free lunch proposal is one that — when carefully examined — essentially proposes that we can fix Social Security without any tax increases or benefit cuts.All of these proposals rely on at least one heroic assumption, and in the case of privatization the assumption is that the average return on private accounts will be about 7% per year. Is this reasonable? Over at MaxSpeak, Dean Baker is properly skeptical.A second post entitled, Smoke & Mirrors, Part 2, goes more deeply into future projections.
Ciao!
--The Gay Millionaire
Post a Comment