I find it a little heartening that America is sobering up. At the same time, I find it immensely, immensely sad that it didn’t happen sooner.
People who were gung-ho for the war six years ago are now doubting it’s wisdom. People who were all for torturing our “enemies” a year or two ago are now beginning to preach it’s evils. And people for whom an impeachment of Mr. Bush even six months ago was anathema are now beginning to speak of how important it is to make a president pay for his wrongdoings.
It’s like after 9/11, we were just all drunk on testosterone (I say “we”, but I mean Americans – I was opposed to this nonsense in Iraq from the beginning) and lynch-mob mentality.
Terry Pratchett, the excellent British fantasist gives an outstanding example of how to calculate the IQ of a mob in one of his books. He says that you take the lowest IQ in the mob and divide by the number of people in the mob and you have the IQ of the mob. That’s kind of where America has been for the last seven years. We were attacked. We were hurt. And we were willing to follow a small-minded, destructive administration anywhere they wanted to lead us. It didn’t matter how many of our freedoms we had to give up in order to protect our freedoms, it didn’t matter how bad we had to be to prove that we were good, it didn’t matter how many devils we had to make deals with to prove how Christian we were. We’re right and they’re wrong, we’re good and they’re evil and that’s it.
Thank God that we’re coming out of that.
One loved one of mine who voted for Mr. Bush both times said of Barak Obama “You know, I kind of wish that he WAS a Muslim. I think that it would do America good to have a Muslim president for a while.” That comment both surprised me and pleased me, demonstrating how much we’ve sobered up since 9/11.
So what do we do now?
VOTE! I’m telling you, brothers and sisters, if less than sixty percent of Americans vote, McCain will win and we’ll be stuck right where we are for another four years. This same friend of mine commented that he couldn’t believe that twenty-five to thirty percent of Americans still support Mr. Bush. This is the same twenty-five to thirty percent of Americans who believe that Saddam Hussein had either something to do with 9/11 and/or WMD. This is the same twenty-five to thirty percent that voted for Mr. Bush both times. This is the same twenty-five to thirty percent of Americans who will march to the polls, election day after election day, come Hell or high water, and vote for whomever the Republican party tells them to vote for. Liberals tend to be a little more flexible in their thinking at election time, so although twenty-five to thirty percent of them vote, it’s not always for the democratic candidate. Al Gore and John F. Kerry proved that.
Learn something about the Muslim faith. American Christians are deeply ignorant of the Muslim faith, and typically arrogant enough to be proud of it.
I’m not going to try to give a primer of the Muslim faith here, only know that most of what you think you know about it is wrong. Jesus and Mohammed were brothers in faith. Mohammed said repeatedly in the Q’uran that he wasn’t revealing anything new, he was only affirming what had already been revealed through Moses and Abraham and Adam and Jesus. So please, just learn a little something about it.
One thing that I will tell you here is that a large part of the Muslim hatred toward us is centered around our military support of Israel. Imagine this… imagine that a foreign nation came in to America and said “You know, the land that you live on now was promised to the Indians by their Gods. Now we’re not going to ask you to leave entirely, we just want you to leave all of the country from the Rockies west, so that we can return that to the Indians as a homeland. And if you won’t move voluntarily, we will bring a multi-national military force in to remove you.” Would you be happy with that, or would you hate these aggressors who chased you off of land that your people had been living on for hundreds of years? Well, that’s exactly what we did to Palestinian Muslims when the nation of Israel was declared in the forties. One thing that we’re not taking into account is that if the God of Israel wanted them to have the land, wouldn’t he take a hand in allowing them to keep it?
Just some stuff to chew over.
Peace.
Randal
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Scary Questions
When did Americans become so scared of questions? QUESTIONS!
I have a reputation for being kind of a smart-ass and a troublemaker because I ask questions. BUT I ASK QUESTIONS SO THAT I CAN LEARN THINGS, NOT TO START TROUBLE! I like knowing new things, and when I encounter something that I don’t understand, I tend to ask a question and hope that someone can enlighten me about it.
I think that I first noticed this years ago, when I was helping a cashier at my store. Some Christmas stuff was coming through with polar bears one it. I was (as usual) confused and I asked “What do polar bears have to do with Christmas?” She thought for a minute and said “They live at the North Pole with Santa.” Okay, cool. A little later an ornament with a cute little penguin wearing a Santa hat came through and I said “Okay, what do penguins have to do with Christmas? They live at the SOUTH pole.” She said “Oh, you’re such a grinch!” Oh really? I’m a grinch because I’m trying to figure out how Christmas went from a celebration of the birth of Christ to Santa brings you toys to polar bears and penguins?
More recently, the two questions that seem to be getting me into a lot of trouble both involve the mess in Iraq. And they are, I might add, questions that people with a lot more oomph than me should be asking. They are “What is our mission in Iraq?” and “What is victory in Iraq?”
A conservative friend of mine and I were discussing the war a while back. He said “Well, our troops certainly aren’t being given the best chance for victory there.” And I said “Okay, since you brought it up – what exactly does victory in Iraq look like? Because frankly, I can’t see it. I genuinely want to know.” He paused for a sec (his thoughtfulness is one of the things that I love about him) and said “Well, when you just ask straight out like that… I don’t know. Just grab the oil and run, I guess.” Then he shook his head, realizing, I think, that only moments before he had mouthed the conservative talking point that the mess “isn’t about oil”.
Then, a couple of weeks ago, I was watching a show that I enjoy on Showtime. If you don’t have Showtime, folks, lemme tell ya – it’s well worth the $10 or $20 per month that they charge, just for the series. You have Penn and Teller’s Bullshit, Dexter, Weeds, Secret Diary of a Call Girl, Californication… these are all excellent shows.
The one that I was watching in particular was Bullshit. The specific topic that they were addressing was “World Peace”. No, they weren’t saying that world peace is bullshit, only that some of the ways that we approach it are bullshit.
On this show, they had a lady named Melanie Morgan from an outfit called “Move America Forward (MoveAmericaForward.org). Below is the body of an e-mail that I sent to her via info@MoveAmericaForward.org, hoping to get some clarity on the issue.
Hello. I recently saw Ms. Morgan on Penn and Teller's Bullshit on the Showtime network and have a question for her.
First off, since you present yourself as a pro-troop organization, please allow me to establish my bona fides. I come from a military family. My paternal grandfather served in the Navy in the Pacific theater in WWII. One of my paternal uncles was in Korea with the army. My father was in the Air Force in Bermuda during the Cuban missile crisis. Two paternal uncles served in Viet Nam, one of whom did not return. My older brother served in the Army. I served four years of ROTC and was then denied military service for medical reasons. My nephew served in Kuwait for the first several years of the current engagement in Iraq. Now that you know my history with the toops, please allow me to proceed with my question.
In her appearance on Bullshit, Ms. Morgan said "Move Forward America supports our troops and their mission... we wish for victory for our troops and our soldiers." So my question to Ms. Morgan (or anyone else who would care to address it) is "What is the mission of our troops? What is victory in Iraq?" As near as i can tell, and all of my friends who have served agree with me, Iraq is a mission without an objective. When no objective is given, there can be neither victory or failure - only the endless death and destruction of the young people valiant enough to serve their country to no positive means. One conservative friend to whom i addressed this question said "Well, when you put it straight out like that, i just don't know. I suppose get the oil and get out." Then he shook his head, realizing, i think, that he has adopted the party line that this war ISN'T about oil.
If you can answer this question for me, i'd appreciate it. I support our troops and the thought that they are being fed into a meat grinder for no noble purpose sickens me. Thank you.
Randal Schaffer
So, I think the fact that I question the mess in Iraq came through pretty clearly in that text. I don’t try to hide it. I’ve spoken to several Bush supporters who have pretended to be opponents of the Bush administration trying to trick me, and I don’t do that. I think that it’s underhanded, which seems to have become the platform of the Republican party – underhandedness and sneakiness. Also, my “signature line”, the line below my name on every e-mail that I send out currently is “OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!” Pretty much a dead giveaway, I think.
I sent that e-mail fifteen days ago today, and have not had a response. After about a week, I gave up thinking that I was going to get one. Of course, she and her organization are probably out campaigning for McCain so that he can keep us in that mess for a hundred years.
Well, no point to this post, really, I guess. Other than “If someone asks you a question, try to answer it.” More information can really only help us, regardless of what the Bush administration believes.
Oh, and if anyone can answer that question for me, please put the answers here as a comment. And I’m not talking about non-answers like “WMD” or “9-11”, because both of these have been proven fallacious. I also will not accept “To bring democracy to the middle east”, at least not until our troops come out of Saudi Arabia. We’re in Arabia preventing the democratic overthrow of the Ibn Al Saud royal family, which is universally hated by their people. Oh, and any Saudis who are living in America, please don’t try to dispute that. If you loved the royal family, why are you living here? Also, Iraq has elected a Congress and TWO Prime Ministers (we didn’t like the first one that they elected, so we declared the election null and made them re-vote. They got the hint the second time). So if we were there to bring them democracy, and they’ve now got a congress, a prime minister and, oh I forgot, a Constitution, then why don’t we shake the dust of Iraq off of our boots and get the hell out of there?
Peace.
Randal
I have a reputation for being kind of a smart-ass and a troublemaker because I ask questions. BUT I ASK QUESTIONS SO THAT I CAN LEARN THINGS, NOT TO START TROUBLE! I like knowing new things, and when I encounter something that I don’t understand, I tend to ask a question and hope that someone can enlighten me about it.
I think that I first noticed this years ago, when I was helping a cashier at my store. Some Christmas stuff was coming through with polar bears one it. I was (as usual) confused and I asked “What do polar bears have to do with Christmas?” She thought for a minute and said “They live at the North Pole with Santa.” Okay, cool. A little later an ornament with a cute little penguin wearing a Santa hat came through and I said “Okay, what do penguins have to do with Christmas? They live at the SOUTH pole.” She said “Oh, you’re such a grinch!” Oh really? I’m a grinch because I’m trying to figure out how Christmas went from a celebration of the birth of Christ to Santa brings you toys to polar bears and penguins?
More recently, the two questions that seem to be getting me into a lot of trouble both involve the mess in Iraq. And they are, I might add, questions that people with a lot more oomph than me should be asking. They are “What is our mission in Iraq?” and “What is victory in Iraq?”
A conservative friend of mine and I were discussing the war a while back. He said “Well, our troops certainly aren’t being given the best chance for victory there.” And I said “Okay, since you brought it up – what exactly does victory in Iraq look like? Because frankly, I can’t see it. I genuinely want to know.” He paused for a sec (his thoughtfulness is one of the things that I love about him) and said “Well, when you just ask straight out like that… I don’t know. Just grab the oil and run, I guess.” Then he shook his head, realizing, I think, that only moments before he had mouthed the conservative talking point that the mess “isn’t about oil”.
Then, a couple of weeks ago, I was watching a show that I enjoy on Showtime. If you don’t have Showtime, folks, lemme tell ya – it’s well worth the $10 or $20 per month that they charge, just for the series. You have Penn and Teller’s Bullshit, Dexter, Weeds, Secret Diary of a Call Girl, Californication… these are all excellent shows.
The one that I was watching in particular was Bullshit. The specific topic that they were addressing was “World Peace”. No, they weren’t saying that world peace is bullshit, only that some of the ways that we approach it are bullshit.
On this show, they had a lady named Melanie Morgan from an outfit called “Move America Forward (MoveAmericaForward.org). Below is the body of an e-mail that I sent to her via info@MoveAmericaForward.org, hoping to get some clarity on the issue.
Hello. I recently saw Ms. Morgan on Penn and Teller's Bullshit on the Showtime network and have a question for her.
First off, since you present yourself as a pro-troop organization, please allow me to establish my bona fides. I come from a military family. My paternal grandfather served in the Navy in the Pacific theater in WWII. One of my paternal uncles was in Korea with the army. My father was in the Air Force in Bermuda during the Cuban missile crisis. Two paternal uncles served in Viet Nam, one of whom did not return. My older brother served in the Army. I served four years of ROTC and was then denied military service for medical reasons. My nephew served in Kuwait for the first several years of the current engagement in Iraq. Now that you know my history with the toops, please allow me to proceed with my question.
In her appearance on Bullshit, Ms. Morgan said "Move Forward America supports our troops and their mission... we wish for victory for our troops and our soldiers." So my question to Ms. Morgan (or anyone else who would care to address it) is "What is the mission of our troops? What is victory in Iraq?" As near as i can tell, and all of my friends who have served agree with me, Iraq is a mission without an objective. When no objective is given, there can be neither victory or failure - only the endless death and destruction of the young people valiant enough to serve their country to no positive means. One conservative friend to whom i addressed this question said "Well, when you put it straight out like that, i just don't know. I suppose get the oil and get out." Then he shook his head, realizing, i think, that he has adopted the party line that this war ISN'T about oil.
If you can answer this question for me, i'd appreciate it. I support our troops and the thought that they are being fed into a meat grinder for no noble purpose sickens me. Thank you.
Randal Schaffer
So, I think the fact that I question the mess in Iraq came through pretty clearly in that text. I don’t try to hide it. I’ve spoken to several Bush supporters who have pretended to be opponents of the Bush administration trying to trick me, and I don’t do that. I think that it’s underhanded, which seems to have become the platform of the Republican party – underhandedness and sneakiness. Also, my “signature line”, the line below my name on every e-mail that I send out currently is “OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!” Pretty much a dead giveaway, I think.
I sent that e-mail fifteen days ago today, and have not had a response. After about a week, I gave up thinking that I was going to get one. Of course, she and her organization are probably out campaigning for McCain so that he can keep us in that mess for a hundred years.
Well, no point to this post, really, I guess. Other than “If someone asks you a question, try to answer it.” More information can really only help us, regardless of what the Bush administration believes.
Oh, and if anyone can answer that question for me, please put the answers here as a comment. And I’m not talking about non-answers like “WMD” or “9-11”, because both of these have been proven fallacious. I also will not accept “To bring democracy to the middle east”, at least not until our troops come out of Saudi Arabia. We’re in Arabia preventing the democratic overthrow of the Ibn Al Saud royal family, which is universally hated by their people. Oh, and any Saudis who are living in America, please don’t try to dispute that. If you loved the royal family, why are you living here? Also, Iraq has elected a Congress and TWO Prime Ministers (we didn’t like the first one that they elected, so we declared the election null and made them re-vote. They got the hint the second time). So if we were there to bring them democracy, and they’ve now got a congress, a prime minister and, oh I forgot, a Constitution, then why don’t we shake the dust of Iraq off of our boots and get the hell out of there?
Peace.
Randal
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Sodomy; Homosexuality in the New Testament
I wanted to start this entry with something that I omitted last night – the Biblical story of Sodom. Every preacher in the world starts their lessons of hate and intolerance with the story of Sodom. Bad, right? Sodomites, sodomy, all means homosexual, yeah?
Well, let’s see. In its entirety, here is Genesis 19:1 to 19:14, the story of Sodom…
“And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? Son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: for we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it. And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.”
First off, show of hands… if two men or angels arrived at your door and a group of men outside wanted to “KNOW” (assuming a sexual relationship) with the men, who would offer their two virgin daughters instead? That’s reprehensible, and yet somehow these homo-hating Christians use this as an example of the evils of homosexuality (which is only present by the barest of tangents) and NOT as an example of what a bloody, cock-rotted bastard Lot was! And any of you who are prepared to start throwing the new covenant with me would do well to know that in 2 Peter (2:7 and 2:8) Lot is called a “just” man and a “righteous” man. I will stress that Jesus didn’t mention him. Probably didn’t want to sully his mouth with this bastard’s name.
Second off, another show of hands… who among you knows that God destroyed Sodom because the men were homosexual? Yeah? Most? All? But look at 19:13 again. “for we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.” Before they arrived in the city, they had their marching orders from God. “The LORD hath sent us to destroy it.” They were THERE to destroy the city. So, obviously, the presumed homosexuality of the men isn’t the reason that Sodom was destroyed. Then why? Because it was inhabited with bastards like Lot who are ready to give up their virgin daughters to be raped and possibly killed at the drop of a hat?
This actually ISN’T a mystery. For anyone who bothers to study the Bible instead of simply taking someone else’s word for what it says, we have Ezekiel 16:49 which says “This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness ... neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”
Let’s see… pride, check. Fullness of bread, check. Abundance of idleness, check. Not strengthening the hand of the poor and needy, check.
Here’s what I suggest – remember what happened to Sodom the next time that you want to talk about how “America’s the greatest country in the world” – that’s pride. Remember what happened to Sodom the next time that you eat so much at Thanksgiving that you have to unfasten your pants to let your fat gut out and then throw food away – that’s fullness of bread. Remember what happened to Sodom the next time that you find yourself spending hours on end doing absolutely nothing – that’s abundance of idleness. Remember what happened to Sodom the next time that you vote for a politician who can come up with ANY reason not to provide food, shelter and health care for less fortunate Americans – that’s not strengthening the hand of the poor and needy. Do you get it? THE SINS OF SODOM WERE NOT HOMOSEXUALITY OR SEXUAL PERVERSITY – THE SINS OF SODOM WERE THE SINS OF 21ST CENTURY AMERICA! WE ARE SODOM.
Okay, so a story where a traveler is put up for the night instead of sleeping in the street, the house is ringed around with men who demand that the traveler be sent out so that the men can “know” him and the master of the house offering two send two women out instead so that the men can “do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing” and the men refuse. Sodom, right?
Except…
The story that I just mentioned is from Judges 19 when an unknown Levite was traveling though the city of Gibeah. Take a look. In almost all particulars, this story is IDENTICAL to the story of Sodom, all the way down to the wording used. Except that in this story, it is the man’s concubine and his virgin daughter that he offers. The men refuse, just like in the story of Sodom, but this unnamed Levite chickens out at the last moment and pushes his concubine out to the crowd, but not his virgin daughter, thank God. So the men “knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.” The next morning, half raped to death, the men toss the concubine up on the steps and, presumably, go away. So now, this unnamed Levite nurses this woman back to health and rewards her for saving him from rape, right? WRONG. He “he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel” (Judges 19:29). He killed her, divided her dead body into twelve pieces and sent her into all the coasts of Israel. And so what then? Did God destroy Gibeah as he did Sodom, since they had the same threatened rape? Nope. Nothing. No punishment for Gibeah. I think that this shows pretty clearly that homosexuality was not at issue here.
Personally, I hope that this unnamed Levite and Lot are sharing the same especially hot corner of Hell.
Okay, so we’ve finished with the repulsive hew and cry of the Old Testament, thank God. On to the new covenant.
Just like most modern Christians, we’re going to skip over the words of Christ here, because Christ didn’t address homosexuality at all. Some believe that he did when he said told wives to keep to their husbands and husbands to their wives. I disagree. This seems pretty clearly a caution against adultery to me. We also have to remember that marriage was a very different thing in the time of Jesus than it is now. No birth control, rampant STD’s. Today, two people meet, date, fall in love or not, become lovers or not, and make a decision whether or not to marry. And even if they do marry, many people choose not to have children, which was the sole reason for marriage in Jesus’ day. They are free to do this. In the time of Jesus, an arrangement was generally made by parents about children who did not love, frequently did not even KNOW each other and they were married when they came of age. And the fruit of that marriage was expected to be a swelling of the tribe through copious childbirth. And if the wife did not bear children, then the husband went out and negotiated with another girl’s parents to marry her as well in the hopes that she might bear children. Personally, I think that the best way to address this, instead of denying some couples the legal protections of modern marriage, we just need to get the government OUT of the marriage business entirely. Let’s leave marriage in the churches where it belongs, and let each church decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriages, and let the government worry about the civil side of it – denying civil marriage to no one, respecting the separation of church and state.
So what does the New Testament say about homosexuality? Well, from Romans 1:26 and 1:27, we have “For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.” Look closely at that passage: “GOD GAVE THEM up to vile passions”. This is something that God has done, who are we to undo it? Or to even try? Didn’t Saint Augustine call it “ultimate hubris” to try to know the mind of God? And in Romans, the death penalty isn’t even called for regards homosexuality like it is in the Old Testament. So what DOES deserve death? Well, according to Romans 1:29 to 1:32, “being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.” If the mess in Iraq is an evil thing, as many Americans believe, doesn’t that mean that the people who approve of the war are worthy of death, going by this quote? And I think that pretty much covers all of humanity. I know that I am, on occasion, envious, malign, a whisperer, proud, boastful, and have been disobedient to my parents, am frequently implacable (not to be appeased, mollified, or pacified; inexorable) and enjoy debate. Why don’t the fundamentalists list these things as great sins as well, especially considering that homosexuals, which he apparently covered under “without natural affection” is third from last on the list?
Which brings us to the last quote on the subject, Corinthians 6:9 and 6:10, where the following people are listed as being “unworthy of the kingdom of God”: fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners”. Modern fundamentalists take “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” to mean homosexuals. I don’t know about “effeminate”, I know some extremely masculine homosexuals (both men and women). Also, the Greek word that is translated as “effeminate” here is “malakoi”, which actually means “soft”, meaning “soft men”. Since Jesus himself was a very gentle (soft) man, it might take some thought as to what this ACTUALLY means rather then simply making an ASS of U and ME and immediately jumping to homosexual. And what about “abusers of themselves with mankind”? I believe that when the Bible refers to “mankind” it is not talking about malekind, but rather humanity. So I think that this covers people who abuse themselves at the hands of other people. I think that this applies to people who remain in abusive relationships, drug abusers, and just about anyone who uses sexuality in a personally destructive fashion.
We also have to remember that Paul himself, like many modern fundamentalists, consider the God-gift of sexual pleasure itself something repulsive. When it came to sex, Paul said that married men should live as if they have no wife, but if they absolutely MUST have sex that it’s better to marry than to burn in hell. (First letter to the Corinthians, 7:9).
I know (he said with a heavy sigh) that this will not convince modern, Biblically-ignorant Fundamentalists to just leave homosexuals alone to give God any answer that he might require of them, but it’s the best that I can do.
Peace.
Randal
Well, let’s see. In its entirety, here is Genesis 19:1 to 19:14, the story of Sodom…
“And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? Son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: for we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it. And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.”
First off, show of hands… if two men or angels arrived at your door and a group of men outside wanted to “KNOW” (assuming a sexual relationship) with the men, who would offer their two virgin daughters instead? That’s reprehensible, and yet somehow these homo-hating Christians use this as an example of the evils of homosexuality (which is only present by the barest of tangents) and NOT as an example of what a bloody, cock-rotted bastard Lot was! And any of you who are prepared to start throwing the new covenant with me would do well to know that in 2 Peter (2:7 and 2:8) Lot is called a “just” man and a “righteous” man. I will stress that Jesus didn’t mention him. Probably didn’t want to sully his mouth with this bastard’s name.
Second off, another show of hands… who among you knows that God destroyed Sodom because the men were homosexual? Yeah? Most? All? But look at 19:13 again. “for we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.” Before they arrived in the city, they had their marching orders from God. “The LORD hath sent us to destroy it.” They were THERE to destroy the city. So, obviously, the presumed homosexuality of the men isn’t the reason that Sodom was destroyed. Then why? Because it was inhabited with bastards like Lot who are ready to give up their virgin daughters to be raped and possibly killed at the drop of a hat?
This actually ISN’T a mystery. For anyone who bothers to study the Bible instead of simply taking someone else’s word for what it says, we have Ezekiel 16:49 which says “This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness ... neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”
Let’s see… pride, check. Fullness of bread, check. Abundance of idleness, check. Not strengthening the hand of the poor and needy, check.
Here’s what I suggest – remember what happened to Sodom the next time that you want to talk about how “America’s the greatest country in the world” – that’s pride. Remember what happened to Sodom the next time that you eat so much at Thanksgiving that you have to unfasten your pants to let your fat gut out and then throw food away – that’s fullness of bread. Remember what happened to Sodom the next time that you find yourself spending hours on end doing absolutely nothing – that’s abundance of idleness. Remember what happened to Sodom the next time that you vote for a politician who can come up with ANY reason not to provide food, shelter and health care for less fortunate Americans – that’s not strengthening the hand of the poor and needy. Do you get it? THE SINS OF SODOM WERE NOT HOMOSEXUALITY OR SEXUAL PERVERSITY – THE SINS OF SODOM WERE THE SINS OF 21ST CENTURY AMERICA! WE ARE SODOM.
Okay, so a story where a traveler is put up for the night instead of sleeping in the street, the house is ringed around with men who demand that the traveler be sent out so that the men can “know” him and the master of the house offering two send two women out instead so that the men can “do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing” and the men refuse. Sodom, right?
Except…
The story that I just mentioned is from Judges 19 when an unknown Levite was traveling though the city of Gibeah. Take a look. In almost all particulars, this story is IDENTICAL to the story of Sodom, all the way down to the wording used. Except that in this story, it is the man’s concubine and his virgin daughter that he offers. The men refuse, just like in the story of Sodom, but this unnamed Levite chickens out at the last moment and pushes his concubine out to the crowd, but not his virgin daughter, thank God. So the men “knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.” The next morning, half raped to death, the men toss the concubine up on the steps and, presumably, go away. So now, this unnamed Levite nurses this woman back to health and rewards her for saving him from rape, right? WRONG. He “he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel” (Judges 19:29). He killed her, divided her dead body into twelve pieces and sent her into all the coasts of Israel. And so what then? Did God destroy Gibeah as he did Sodom, since they had the same threatened rape? Nope. Nothing. No punishment for Gibeah. I think that this shows pretty clearly that homosexuality was not at issue here.
Personally, I hope that this unnamed Levite and Lot are sharing the same especially hot corner of Hell.
Okay, so we’ve finished with the repulsive hew and cry of the Old Testament, thank God. On to the new covenant.
Just like most modern Christians, we’re going to skip over the words of Christ here, because Christ didn’t address homosexuality at all. Some believe that he did when he said told wives to keep to their husbands and husbands to their wives. I disagree. This seems pretty clearly a caution against adultery to me. We also have to remember that marriage was a very different thing in the time of Jesus than it is now. No birth control, rampant STD’s. Today, two people meet, date, fall in love or not, become lovers or not, and make a decision whether or not to marry. And even if they do marry, many people choose not to have children, which was the sole reason for marriage in Jesus’ day. They are free to do this. In the time of Jesus, an arrangement was generally made by parents about children who did not love, frequently did not even KNOW each other and they were married when they came of age. And the fruit of that marriage was expected to be a swelling of the tribe through copious childbirth. And if the wife did not bear children, then the husband went out and negotiated with another girl’s parents to marry her as well in the hopes that she might bear children. Personally, I think that the best way to address this, instead of denying some couples the legal protections of modern marriage, we just need to get the government OUT of the marriage business entirely. Let’s leave marriage in the churches where it belongs, and let each church decide whether or not to recognize same-sex marriages, and let the government worry about the civil side of it – denying civil marriage to no one, respecting the separation of church and state.
So what does the New Testament say about homosexuality? Well, from Romans 1:26 and 1:27, we have “For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.” Look closely at that passage: “GOD GAVE THEM up to vile passions”. This is something that God has done, who are we to undo it? Or to even try? Didn’t Saint Augustine call it “ultimate hubris” to try to know the mind of God? And in Romans, the death penalty isn’t even called for regards homosexuality like it is in the Old Testament. So what DOES deserve death? Well, according to Romans 1:29 to 1:32, “being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.” If the mess in Iraq is an evil thing, as many Americans believe, doesn’t that mean that the people who approve of the war are worthy of death, going by this quote? And I think that pretty much covers all of humanity. I know that I am, on occasion, envious, malign, a whisperer, proud, boastful, and have been disobedient to my parents, am frequently implacable (not to be appeased, mollified, or pacified; inexorable) and enjoy debate. Why don’t the fundamentalists list these things as great sins as well, especially considering that homosexuals, which he apparently covered under “without natural affection” is third from last on the list?
Which brings us to the last quote on the subject, Corinthians 6:9 and 6:10, where the following people are listed as being “unworthy of the kingdom of God”: fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners”. Modern fundamentalists take “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” to mean homosexuals. I don’t know about “effeminate”, I know some extremely masculine homosexuals (both men and women). Also, the Greek word that is translated as “effeminate” here is “malakoi”, which actually means “soft”, meaning “soft men”. Since Jesus himself was a very gentle (soft) man, it might take some thought as to what this ACTUALLY means rather then simply making an ASS of U and ME and immediately jumping to homosexual. And what about “abusers of themselves with mankind”? I believe that when the Bible refers to “mankind” it is not talking about malekind, but rather humanity. So I think that this covers people who abuse themselves at the hands of other people. I think that this applies to people who remain in abusive relationships, drug abusers, and just about anyone who uses sexuality in a personally destructive fashion.
We also have to remember that Paul himself, like many modern fundamentalists, consider the God-gift of sexual pleasure itself something repulsive. When it came to sex, Paul said that married men should live as if they have no wife, but if they absolutely MUST have sex that it’s better to marry than to burn in hell. (First letter to the Corinthians, 7:9).
I know (he said with a heavy sigh) that this will not convince modern, Biblically-ignorant Fundamentalists to just leave homosexuals alone to give God any answer that he might require of them, but it’s the best that I can do.
Peace.
Randal
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Homosexuality and the Old Testament
Got into a discussion today with yet another Christian who believes that the Bible clearly and unabashedly condemns homosexuality above any other sin. So I decided to make myself go cross-eyed and take a look at what the Bible ACTUALLY says about homosexuality. Remember – I think so that you don’t have to. (Not really. I’d love it if ALL Americans thought before speaking or acting, but what are you gonna do?)
One problem with the way that many modern Christians are using the Bible in their war on homosexuals is that they feel that they can pick a verse from Leviticus, pick a verse from Romans and their case is made. After all, the Bible is nothing but a series of quotes to be used for your own benefit with no historical basis or continuity, right? Absolutely right, except for the fact that it’s completely wrong. When you look at the quote from Leviticus below, you really have to understand the BOOK of Leviticus (which means “of the Levites – the priest order of the Jewish faith), what the historical surroundings are, and what the laws were at the time. For instance, you have to remember that there WAS no separation of church and state in Old Testament times – the Jewish church WAS the state.
With that in mind…
Let’s start with the quote that every good little Christian learns on their road to hate and intolerance, Leviticus 18:22 (I am using the KJV by the way) “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Wow. Very clear. Case closed, right?
Except…
Why do you suppose that it’s an abomination for man to lie with man, but not for woman to lie with woman? I mean, aside from the fact that two women together is hot and the Old Testament dudes liked to throw a couple sheckles at the temple whores to watch them go at it with each other?
I think that the answer lies in reproduction. We all know how babies are made, right? Sperm meets egg and WHAM you got yourself a baby. But how were babies made in Old Testament time?
Well, let’s start by thinking of the time. No microscopes. No medicine. No idea that sperm or egg existed. So what DID they know? Well, they knew that, at a certain point in human sexual intercourse, some stuff came out of the man’s penis. That was about it. And that it felt good for the guy – the pleasure of women didn’t really matter and wasn’t acknowledged until the early part of the twentieth century. So the man MUST be responsible for pregnancy, right? This idea… that men carry a little person inside their ejaculate that the woman nurtures and grows into a baby is called homunculus (pronounced ho-mon-cue-luss) theory. So this isn’t about sex or pleasure or love or anything else – it’s about reproduction. The same reason that Onan in Genesis 38:8 to 38:10 is struck down for every sperm that he ejaculated upon the ground instead of inside his brother’s widow. Because, according to homunculus theory, every one of those little sperms contained a little person. Dreadful. Awful. Terrible. Not true in any way shape or form, but still…
The egg, or ovum was not discovered until 1850! Human beings had no idea that women had ANYTHING to do with reproduction until 1850 years after the birth of Christ, or just over 150 years ago!
So, I think that, based on this evidence, we can safely say that the Levitical statement of homosexuality being an abomination had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with reproduction. After all, one of the 630 commandments (not ten as Hollywood would have you believe) is to increase your tribe.
So… just for fun… shall we see what ELSE the Bible calls “abominations”? Lets.
Leviticus 11:20 says that eating anything without a fin in the ocean is an abomination. Shellfish, in other words. So no shrimp, no crab, no clams no fresh Maine Lob-stah. I wonder… is my beloved Costco responsible for making the people who buy shellfish at our seafood road show commit abominations? I mean, they buy it, but if we didn’t sell it they might not buy it.
According to Leviticus 11:13 to 11:21, eating eagles, ossifrages, osprays, vultures, kites, ravens, owls, night hawks, cuckoos, hawks, little owls, cormorants, great owls, swans, pelicans, gier eagles, storks, herons, lapwings, bats, or any “flying creeping thing that goeth upon all fours” is an abomination. You know, I’m not sure what a flying creeping thing that goeth upon all fours is, but I think that I’m going to have nightmares about one tonight. And if I ever come across one, I sure HELL ain’t eating it. According to Leviticus 11:22, though, it’s okay to eat locusts, beetles and grasshoppers. Sorry, God, but if I’m starving and I have a choice between eating a bat or eating a locust, the bat’s going DOWN!
Leviticus 11:41 says that it’s an abomination to eat every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth. No sweat. Doesn’t even sound appetizing. Interesting side note, though – many cultures consider it okay to eat eels, but not land snakes because eels don’t creepeth upon the Earth, they swim AND have fins. So they’re okay.
Deuteronomy 17:1 says that sacrificing a bullock, or a sheep with a blemish or an “evilfavouredness” to God is an abomination. I’ll remember that next time I sacrifice. Oh, wait, that’s right – despite God’s commandment to do so, Christians don’t sacrifice. Forgot. Thought that we were following the laws of God for a minute there, not picking and choosing.
Deuteronomy 22:5 says that it’s an abomination for a woman to wear men’s clothes or a man to wear woman’s clothes. You know, I always thought that it was unfair for women to be able to wear our clothes, when we can’t wear theirs. I’d be interested in looking into this further, because in Old Testament days men and women wore pretty much the same things.
Now, this one is VERY important… if you are a whore or a pimp, or have sold a dog, you CANNOT donate the proceeds from this transaction to the church. Deuteronomy 23:18 says that this is an abomination. Every Christian professional dog breeder is, by this logic, guilty of committing abominations.
Oh, get this. I think that this one is simple common sense. According to Deuteronomy 24:4, it’s an abomination to remarry a woman that you’ve divorced. Seems like every time that I hear a person who has remarried someone that they divorced talk about it, they say something like “Oh yeah… THAT’S why I divorced them.”
Another interesting side note… the Bible gives a stipulation for a man to divorce a woman in cases of adultery or fornication (New Testament – in the Old Testament he could put her to death), but there is no stipulation for a woman to divorce her husband. Ever. For any reason. You married to a guy who beats you or molests your son or daughter? Too bad, Christian woman. If you follow the words of the Bible assiduously, you’re STUCK with them. I think that we’re back to the reproduction thing. If I am responsible for reproduction and I want to divorce you, I keep MY kids. If you leave me, you may try to take MY kids away.
I’m not entirely sure that I understand this one, but, according to Deuteronomy 27:15, it’s an abomination to make any graven or molten image and put it in a secret place. Okay. Don’t understand it, but will do. If I make any graven image (photograph, sculpture in stone, printing from a linotype) or molten image (face on a coin, cast statue) I won’t put them in secret places. Unless my hard drive counts as a secret place. All of my photos are there. Shit. Or my apartment… my apartment’s kind of a secret place. Double shit. Does that mean that I have to take all of my photographs and display them up and down the side of the street? Well, okay… some of the women that I’ve dated are going to be AWFULLY unhappy, though…
Back to homosexuality, though, Leviticus 20:13 actually calls for homosexuals to be put to death. Wow. A little harsh for fabulousness, huh? I notice that, despite trying to convince us that they adhere literally to the Bible, I notice that no fundamentalists or right-wingers are calling for the death penalty for homosexuality. That’s what the Nazis did, after all, and they probably don’t want to acknowledge how much their beliefs mirror the beliefs of the Nazis.
But, Jeez… if God called for death for this, he must disapprove of it very stringently, right?
Except…
Exodus 19:12 calls for death for anyone who climbs Mt. Sinai, or touches it’s borders.
It’s death if you smite a man until he dies (Exodus 21:12) or smite your mother or father (21:15).
Now this is interesting… if you steal a slave or sell a stolen slave you’re to be put to death, according to Exodus 21:16. Not for OWNING a slave, mind you… that’s apparently okay. Cool. I am SO getting me a slave. And since Exodus 21:7 makes it okay to sell your daughters, let me just make this clear… I’m in the market for a young woman, of… say… 20 to 25 years of age… not “evilfavoured”… good figure… open mind… VERY open…. Hair and skin color not important. So if you have a daughter that matches this description and want an offer on her, get in contact with me, wouldja? Thanks.
And then, just when you thought it was safe to be a normal human being, Exodus 21:17 and Lev 20:9 UP the ante and say that it’s death for CURSING your mother and father. Ah, crap. When I was a teenager, I cursed my parents ALL THE TIME! Oh, man. Okay… since we’re doing this whole “literal” thing, I guess that means that everyone who has ever cursed their mother or father needs to line up. The chair or lethal injections, your choice. Of course, if we did that, I rather think that there would be no one left to take the Bible literally, so…
If your ox gores someone, you are to be put to death according to Exodus 21:29, so keep that ox penned up, okay?
And speaking of animals, if a man has sexual congress with an animal, he’s to be put to death according to Exodus 22:19. And Leviticus 20:15 says that both the man AND the animal are to be put to death. Harsh. Oh, an no one is to eat the animal, because that’s an… you guessed it… abomination. Ick. Who’d WANT to?
Oh, and ladies? You’re not safe here, either. Leviticus 20:16 says that YOU die for bestiality, too.
And don’t “defile” the Sabbath – if you do you die according to Exodus 31:14. So what is defiling the Sabbath? Well, according to Exodus 31:15, you get put to death for WORKING on the Sabbath. I guess that I’m safe. I work every Sunday (time and a half, you know) but have every Saturday off except for inventory. And Saturday, we must remember, is the Jewish Sabbath.
Oh, just thought of something that I need to add on my above advert for a slave girl… do me a favor and make sure that she’s not betrothed, okay? According to Leviticus 19:20, sleeping with a betrothed slave girl is death for you and a nice scourging for her. Dying and having my slave girl scourged would make me sad.
Not that this is a big problem anymore, but Leviticus 20:2 says that you get put do death if your children worship Molech.
For those of us who have committed adultery – death for both according to Leviticus 20:10. Also, according to 20:11 and 20:12, sleeping with your father’s wife or your daughter-in-law. Notice that it does NOT say “your mother” because, according to Jewish law, men could have as many wives as they could support equally. You sleep with any of them, you both die.
Leviticus 20:27 says that you die for having a familiar or being a wizard. Good-bye Harry Potter.
Now, Leviticus 24:6 says that you get death for blaspheming against the Lord. Have you ever heard a really bad pun and responded with a smile and an “Oh, God…” That’s it. Death for you. DEATH FOR EVERYONE! Not only must you die, but the congregation is who must kill you. Jesus, that’s harsh. Oh, God, I just blasphemed. Lord, I just did it again… ah, Christ I give up.
I think that the weirdest thing of all is that Leviticus 24:17 says that if you kill someone, you get death.
…
So who’s killing all of these homosexuals and blasphemers and animal fornicators and adulterers? And if you kill any of them, you get death? Then the person that kills YOU gets death, and the person that kills them… man, talk about a vicious cycle…
Deuteronomy is simultaneously and little more lenient and a little more strict. Only two calls for death there.
Deut 13:5 says that you get death for being a prophet or a “dreamer of dreams”. Man alive, I’m a dreamer of dreams pretty much every night when I go to sleep. At least we’ll be able to get rid of Miss Cleo, though.
Now, here’s the strict part… what would you do if your son or daughter came home with a shaved head and professed that they were now Hari Krishna? Ground them? Take away their Ipod? Get them “deprogrammed”? Nope. According to Deut 13:9, you gotta kill ‘em. Also, your step-brother, wife or friend. And not only must they die, but you have to start the killing and the community has to finish it. You prepared to do that?
So now… LET THE BACK-PEDALLING BEGIN! “Er, um, no, you see… when I said that the Bible had to be taken literally, I didn’t mean EVERY WORD… I meant… er… um… and besides, Jesus gave us a NEW covenant so that we don’t have to follow those old laws, right? And in Romans, they speak of homosexuality again… er… don’t they?” (I swear to God – more or less the actual words that I hear from these Christians when I say these things.)
Okay, tell you what. I’m going to take a break. It’s taken me two nights to get to this point, I’m tired and I want to play my Wii. So you guys take the night off, dig your Bible out and dust it off. Tomorrow night, we’ll look at what Romans 1:26, 27 and 29 to 32 and Corinthians 6:9 and 10 (the actual verses) say and what they might mean tomorrow night. Okay?
God bless.
Peace.
Randal
One problem with the way that many modern Christians are using the Bible in their war on homosexuals is that they feel that they can pick a verse from Leviticus, pick a verse from Romans and their case is made. After all, the Bible is nothing but a series of quotes to be used for your own benefit with no historical basis or continuity, right? Absolutely right, except for the fact that it’s completely wrong. When you look at the quote from Leviticus below, you really have to understand the BOOK of Leviticus (which means “of the Levites – the priest order of the Jewish faith), what the historical surroundings are, and what the laws were at the time. For instance, you have to remember that there WAS no separation of church and state in Old Testament times – the Jewish church WAS the state.
With that in mind…
Let’s start with the quote that every good little Christian learns on their road to hate and intolerance, Leviticus 18:22 (I am using the KJV by the way) “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Wow. Very clear. Case closed, right?
Except…
Why do you suppose that it’s an abomination for man to lie with man, but not for woman to lie with woman? I mean, aside from the fact that two women together is hot and the Old Testament dudes liked to throw a couple sheckles at the temple whores to watch them go at it with each other?
I think that the answer lies in reproduction. We all know how babies are made, right? Sperm meets egg and WHAM you got yourself a baby. But how were babies made in Old Testament time?
Well, let’s start by thinking of the time. No microscopes. No medicine. No idea that sperm or egg existed. So what DID they know? Well, they knew that, at a certain point in human sexual intercourse, some stuff came out of the man’s penis. That was about it. And that it felt good for the guy – the pleasure of women didn’t really matter and wasn’t acknowledged until the early part of the twentieth century. So the man MUST be responsible for pregnancy, right? This idea… that men carry a little person inside their ejaculate that the woman nurtures and grows into a baby is called homunculus (pronounced ho-mon-cue-luss) theory. So this isn’t about sex or pleasure or love or anything else – it’s about reproduction. The same reason that Onan in Genesis 38:8 to 38:10 is struck down for every sperm that he ejaculated upon the ground instead of inside his brother’s widow. Because, according to homunculus theory, every one of those little sperms contained a little person. Dreadful. Awful. Terrible. Not true in any way shape or form, but still…
The egg, or ovum was not discovered until 1850! Human beings had no idea that women had ANYTHING to do with reproduction until 1850 years after the birth of Christ, or just over 150 years ago!
So, I think that, based on this evidence, we can safely say that the Levitical statement of homosexuality being an abomination had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with reproduction. After all, one of the 630 commandments (not ten as Hollywood would have you believe) is to increase your tribe.
So… just for fun… shall we see what ELSE the Bible calls “abominations”? Lets.
Leviticus 11:20 says that eating anything without a fin in the ocean is an abomination. Shellfish, in other words. So no shrimp, no crab, no clams no fresh Maine Lob-stah. I wonder… is my beloved Costco responsible for making the people who buy shellfish at our seafood road show commit abominations? I mean, they buy it, but if we didn’t sell it they might not buy it.
According to Leviticus 11:13 to 11:21, eating eagles, ossifrages, osprays, vultures, kites, ravens, owls, night hawks, cuckoos, hawks, little owls, cormorants, great owls, swans, pelicans, gier eagles, storks, herons, lapwings, bats, or any “flying creeping thing that goeth upon all fours” is an abomination. You know, I’m not sure what a flying creeping thing that goeth upon all fours is, but I think that I’m going to have nightmares about one tonight. And if I ever come across one, I sure HELL ain’t eating it. According to Leviticus 11:22, though, it’s okay to eat locusts, beetles and grasshoppers. Sorry, God, but if I’m starving and I have a choice between eating a bat or eating a locust, the bat’s going DOWN!
Leviticus 11:41 says that it’s an abomination to eat every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth. No sweat. Doesn’t even sound appetizing. Interesting side note, though – many cultures consider it okay to eat eels, but not land snakes because eels don’t creepeth upon the Earth, they swim AND have fins. So they’re okay.
Deuteronomy 17:1 says that sacrificing a bullock, or a sheep with a blemish or an “evilfavouredness” to God is an abomination. I’ll remember that next time I sacrifice. Oh, wait, that’s right – despite God’s commandment to do so, Christians don’t sacrifice. Forgot. Thought that we were following the laws of God for a minute there, not picking and choosing.
Deuteronomy 22:5 says that it’s an abomination for a woman to wear men’s clothes or a man to wear woman’s clothes. You know, I always thought that it was unfair for women to be able to wear our clothes, when we can’t wear theirs. I’d be interested in looking into this further, because in Old Testament days men and women wore pretty much the same things.
Now, this one is VERY important… if you are a whore or a pimp, or have sold a dog, you CANNOT donate the proceeds from this transaction to the church. Deuteronomy 23:18 says that this is an abomination. Every Christian professional dog breeder is, by this logic, guilty of committing abominations.
Oh, get this. I think that this one is simple common sense. According to Deuteronomy 24:4, it’s an abomination to remarry a woman that you’ve divorced. Seems like every time that I hear a person who has remarried someone that they divorced talk about it, they say something like “Oh yeah… THAT’S why I divorced them.”
Another interesting side note… the Bible gives a stipulation for a man to divorce a woman in cases of adultery or fornication (New Testament – in the Old Testament he could put her to death), but there is no stipulation for a woman to divorce her husband. Ever. For any reason. You married to a guy who beats you or molests your son or daughter? Too bad, Christian woman. If you follow the words of the Bible assiduously, you’re STUCK with them. I think that we’re back to the reproduction thing. If I am responsible for reproduction and I want to divorce you, I keep MY kids. If you leave me, you may try to take MY kids away.
I’m not entirely sure that I understand this one, but, according to Deuteronomy 27:15, it’s an abomination to make any graven or molten image and put it in a secret place. Okay. Don’t understand it, but will do. If I make any graven image (photograph, sculpture in stone, printing from a linotype) or molten image (face on a coin, cast statue) I won’t put them in secret places. Unless my hard drive counts as a secret place. All of my photos are there. Shit. Or my apartment… my apartment’s kind of a secret place. Double shit. Does that mean that I have to take all of my photographs and display them up and down the side of the street? Well, okay… some of the women that I’ve dated are going to be AWFULLY unhappy, though…
Back to homosexuality, though, Leviticus 20:13 actually calls for homosexuals to be put to death. Wow. A little harsh for fabulousness, huh? I notice that, despite trying to convince us that they adhere literally to the Bible, I notice that no fundamentalists or right-wingers are calling for the death penalty for homosexuality. That’s what the Nazis did, after all, and they probably don’t want to acknowledge how much their beliefs mirror the beliefs of the Nazis.
But, Jeez… if God called for death for this, he must disapprove of it very stringently, right?
Except…
Exodus 19:12 calls for death for anyone who climbs Mt. Sinai, or touches it’s borders.
It’s death if you smite a man until he dies (Exodus 21:12) or smite your mother or father (21:15).
Now this is interesting… if you steal a slave or sell a stolen slave you’re to be put to death, according to Exodus 21:16. Not for OWNING a slave, mind you… that’s apparently okay. Cool. I am SO getting me a slave. And since Exodus 21:7 makes it okay to sell your daughters, let me just make this clear… I’m in the market for a young woman, of… say… 20 to 25 years of age… not “evilfavoured”… good figure… open mind… VERY open…. Hair and skin color not important. So if you have a daughter that matches this description and want an offer on her, get in contact with me, wouldja? Thanks.
And then, just when you thought it was safe to be a normal human being, Exodus 21:17 and Lev 20:9 UP the ante and say that it’s death for CURSING your mother and father. Ah, crap. When I was a teenager, I cursed my parents ALL THE TIME! Oh, man. Okay… since we’re doing this whole “literal” thing, I guess that means that everyone who has ever cursed their mother or father needs to line up. The chair or lethal injections, your choice. Of course, if we did that, I rather think that there would be no one left to take the Bible literally, so…
If your ox gores someone, you are to be put to death according to Exodus 21:29, so keep that ox penned up, okay?
And speaking of animals, if a man has sexual congress with an animal, he’s to be put to death according to Exodus 22:19. And Leviticus 20:15 says that both the man AND the animal are to be put to death. Harsh. Oh, an no one is to eat the animal, because that’s an… you guessed it… abomination. Ick. Who’d WANT to?
Oh, and ladies? You’re not safe here, either. Leviticus 20:16 says that YOU die for bestiality, too.
And don’t “defile” the Sabbath – if you do you die according to Exodus 31:14. So what is defiling the Sabbath? Well, according to Exodus 31:15, you get put to death for WORKING on the Sabbath. I guess that I’m safe. I work every Sunday (time and a half, you know) but have every Saturday off except for inventory. And Saturday, we must remember, is the Jewish Sabbath.
Oh, just thought of something that I need to add on my above advert for a slave girl… do me a favor and make sure that she’s not betrothed, okay? According to Leviticus 19:20, sleeping with a betrothed slave girl is death for you and a nice scourging for her. Dying and having my slave girl scourged would make me sad.
Not that this is a big problem anymore, but Leviticus 20:2 says that you get put do death if your children worship Molech.
For those of us who have committed adultery – death for both according to Leviticus 20:10. Also, according to 20:11 and 20:12, sleeping with your father’s wife or your daughter-in-law. Notice that it does NOT say “your mother” because, according to Jewish law, men could have as many wives as they could support equally. You sleep with any of them, you both die.
Leviticus 20:27 says that you die for having a familiar or being a wizard. Good-bye Harry Potter.
Now, Leviticus 24:6 says that you get death for blaspheming against the Lord. Have you ever heard a really bad pun and responded with a smile and an “Oh, God…” That’s it. Death for you. DEATH FOR EVERYONE! Not only must you die, but the congregation is who must kill you. Jesus, that’s harsh. Oh, God, I just blasphemed. Lord, I just did it again… ah, Christ I give up.
I think that the weirdest thing of all is that Leviticus 24:17 says that if you kill someone, you get death.
…
So who’s killing all of these homosexuals and blasphemers and animal fornicators and adulterers? And if you kill any of them, you get death? Then the person that kills YOU gets death, and the person that kills them… man, talk about a vicious cycle…
Deuteronomy is simultaneously and little more lenient and a little more strict. Only two calls for death there.
Deut 13:5 says that you get death for being a prophet or a “dreamer of dreams”. Man alive, I’m a dreamer of dreams pretty much every night when I go to sleep. At least we’ll be able to get rid of Miss Cleo, though.
Now, here’s the strict part… what would you do if your son or daughter came home with a shaved head and professed that they were now Hari Krishna? Ground them? Take away their Ipod? Get them “deprogrammed”? Nope. According to Deut 13:9, you gotta kill ‘em. Also, your step-brother, wife or friend. And not only must they die, but you have to start the killing and the community has to finish it. You prepared to do that?
So now… LET THE BACK-PEDALLING BEGIN! “Er, um, no, you see… when I said that the Bible had to be taken literally, I didn’t mean EVERY WORD… I meant… er… um… and besides, Jesus gave us a NEW covenant so that we don’t have to follow those old laws, right? And in Romans, they speak of homosexuality again… er… don’t they?” (I swear to God – more or less the actual words that I hear from these Christians when I say these things.)
Okay, tell you what. I’m going to take a break. It’s taken me two nights to get to this point, I’m tired and I want to play my Wii. So you guys take the night off, dig your Bible out and dust it off. Tomorrow night, we’ll look at what Romans 1:26, 27 and 29 to 32 and Corinthians 6:9 and 10 (the actual verses) say and what they might mean tomorrow night. Okay?
God bless.
Peace.
Randal
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Gubernatorial Questionnaire 2008
Here is my questionnaire for the two gubernatorial candidates in Washington state for this year, sitting Governor Christine Gregoire and challenger Dino Rossi. I encourage you to create your own questionnaire with questions that are important to you. If either candidate responds, i will present their answers here with my comments, although i will not edit their answers.
Hello.
My name is Randal Schaffer, and I run a political and social blog at http://randalsrambles.blogspot.com/. As a part of this blog, and as my responsibility to be an educated voter, I have assembled this five-question questionnaire for you and your opponent. Please answer the questions and e-mail the completed questionnaire back to me. I will post it on my blog as soon as I receive it. I will present your answers unedited, although I may comment on them.
Thank you for your attention to your constituency.
1) Washington state currently rates 13th of all of the states in college graduates, and 33rd of all of the states in high school graduates. What would you do as governor to improve those numbers?
2) Both you and your opponent have mentioned gas prices in your television ads. What would you do as governor to ease the burden of high gas prices on Washington residents?
3) In your opinion, how has George Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program effected Washington’s educational system? What would you change about this program as governor?
4) If no national health care program goes into effect in the next presidential administration, do you have a plan to insure health care for Washington residents? If so, please briefly explain what it is. If not, please explain why not.
5) There have been charges of electoral irregularities in the 2006 gubernatorial election. Please share your views on this. Do you believe that there were improprieties in that election? If so, how would you insure that these improprieties are solved for future elections?
Thank you again for your answers.
Sincerely,
Randal Schaffer
Hello.
My name is Randal Schaffer, and I run a political and social blog at http://randalsrambles.blogspot.com/. As a part of this blog, and as my responsibility to be an educated voter, I have assembled this five-question questionnaire for you and your opponent. Please answer the questions and e-mail the completed questionnaire back to me. I will post it on my blog as soon as I receive it. I will present your answers unedited, although I may comment on them.
Thank you for your attention to your constituency.
1) Washington state currently rates 13th of all of the states in college graduates, and 33rd of all of the states in high school graduates. What would you do as governor to improve those numbers?
2) Both you and your opponent have mentioned gas prices in your television ads. What would you do as governor to ease the burden of high gas prices on Washington residents?
3) In your opinion, how has George Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program effected Washington’s educational system? What would you change about this program as governor?
4) If no national health care program goes into effect in the next presidential administration, do you have a plan to insure health care for Washington residents? If so, please briefly explain what it is. If not, please explain why not.
5) There have been charges of electoral irregularities in the 2006 gubernatorial election. Please share your views on this. Do you believe that there were improprieties in that election? If so, how would you insure that these improprieties are solved for future elections?
Thank you again for your answers.
Sincerely,
Randal Schaffer
Friday, August 22, 2008
"You Can't SAY That!"
Negative advertising a sad fact of our fucked-up political system. It is much easier to say something nasty, whether true or not, about your opponent than it is to say something good about yourself.
Oh, before I continue, please allow me to add a brief note to Senators McCain and Obama…
QUIT WHINING ABOUT NEGATIVE ADVERTISING! SAME FOR THE “NEWS” MEDIA – SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT.
There.
Now that I’ve gotten THAT out of my system, please allow me to continue.
One of the things that I really admired about Senator Obama in the beginning of the primary season is that he seemed dedicated to running a positive campaign, despite Senator Clinton’s determination to go ugly early and often. Sadly, he has turned to negative advertising as well.
I have some sympathy for Senator Obama, however. His advisors and the democratic party accused him of being “too soft” on the notoriously negative republicans, fronted by John McCain.
Personally? I’d like to see the secretary of state pass a law against negative advertising. When I was a kid, it was against FCC rules for one product to mention the name of another product in it’s ads. Hence, for those of you old enough to remember, the once-much parodied “brand X” commercials. I’d like to see something similar passed for politicians. Of course, that wouldn’t stop anonymous bullshit like Hilary Clinton’s “
So what can we do about negative advertising? Vote. Vote against candidates that run negative ads – vote FOR candidates that do not. Kind of limits our options to about zero right now. But I’ve said it before, and I’ll probably say it again – it took us a long time to fuck our democracy up – it’ll take a long time and a lot of patience to straighten it out.
What else can we do? Write to Senators McCain and Obama. I’m going to do that. Not to McCain – I’m afraid that my support for him vanished when he started pretending to be hard-right in order to get votes from Bush supporters.
What else can we do? Ignore the negative ads. When my kids were little, my ex-wife and I took parenting classes to be better parents. My son was an A # 1 fit-thrower, and one of the coping tools that we learned for that that worked really well was to ignore the fits. It worked. It took a while, but it DID work. So I’m suggesting the same thing here. Ignore the negative ads – focus instead on what they say about themselves and what their record is. Fortunately, since Obama and McCain are both senators, we actually have a voting record to look at. When a governor (like Bush or Romney) runs, it’s harder to judge.
Another thing to do is to prepare questionnaires to send to the candidates. No guarantee that they’ll respond, but at least you will have tried. I’m going to prepare questionnaires for our local offices that are up for election this year (Senator, Governor) as well as Senators McCain, Obama and Barr for the presidential run. I’ll post them here after I write them, as well as any responses that I receive, unedited but with commentary.
We can stop the negative crap, people… but in this country of Jerry Springer and “Moment of Truth”, where Americans seem to prefer sensationalism above all, it’ll take some time.
And patience.
Peace.
Randal
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Afflicting the Comfortable
How many times have you seen something that said "What would Jesus do?" The problem is that I think that most people who avow this motto do things that Jesus wouldn't do in a thousand years. When I hear someone who professes Christianity make some excuse as to why universal health care isn't feasible, or why this mess in
The simplest words of Jesus always give me pause to think when I'm dealing with others. The specific quote that I'm thinking of is Matthew 25:40, where Jesus says "…inasmuch as ye have done unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done unto me."
So the question is, would you deny Jesus health care? Would you advocate the torture of Jesus?
This has come down to us as the "Golden Rule" – do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Or, in the case of torture, do unto other countries soldiers only as you would have them do unto ours. And no, the "they did it first" argument doesn't work. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE THE BAD GUYS. Our moral high ground becomes a very slippery slope when we start doing the same things that the bad guys are doing.
Oh, and another thought on torture… do you believe that all of our boys who returned from Viet Nam after being coerced into signing false confessions to war crimes under torture should now be persecuted for those crimes? No? Because they only signed them because they were tortured? And yet, we're prosecuting people based on information and confessions gained through torture. See the stupidity?
Just as people who profess Christianity really need to study and attempt to follow the words of Christ, so do those of us who deny the usefulness of torture on our own soldiers need to deny the usefulness (and use) of torture altogether.
Here's the point that we've arrived at by being a "Christian" country who doesn't follow Christ: we have become a country of such moral ambiguity that we are perpetrating a "war on terrorism" without defining terrorism. You see, if we define it then we will have to hold ourselves accountable for any times that we have fallen into that definition. No definition = we are never guilty of it. We have become a country that advocates torture of our "enemies" while berating other countries for torturing their enemies. Honest to God, guys, we can't have it both ways.
Do yourself a favor, if you call yourself a Christian… shut your computer down, go grab your Bible and read the red words – these are the words of Christ. It'll only take you about a half hour. He didn't really say all that much. But what he DID say is pretty damned amazing. And I'd be willing to bet that you don't hear all that much about what he said in your church. The reason? Many modern churches are about comforting their flocks so that their flocks will continue to support them financially. Modern Christians use the Bible to justify their greed, their support of the mess in
I forget who I'm paraphrasing here, but Jesus came both to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
"…sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." – Luke 18:22
Peace
Randal
The Coasts Vs. the "Real" America
I've heard a lot of something that just, let's face it, pisses me off. I heard it again today. That the people from the middle of the country and the south are somehow better, or more "American" (whatever that means) or more "moral" (whatever THAT means) than those of us on the coast. There was apparently even a plot afoot with the Hillary Clinton campaign to attack Barak Obama for being less in touch with "American values" (whatever THOSE are), being from
So, I've decided that, being a West-coast intellectual elitist, (I'm smoking a pipe and drinking tea as I write this, I swear to God) that I would approach these questions in an intellectual and logical fashion.
The first thing that I'd like to approach is education. It kind of tickles me and kind of terrifies me that a group of college-educated intellectuals have convinced working-class people (among whom I count myself) that it is somehow BAD to be a college-educated intellectual. How does that work? If I have a college education (which I don't, I state with neither pride nor shame) and I try to tell you that people with college educations are bad, why the hell would you listen to me? Doesn't that make ME bad, since I have a college education?
So, let's see who has the most education. (All numbers presented in this blog entry are percents, by the way, so they are not based on population, but rather percentage of available population. So 25% of a state with a low population like
The five states with the highest percentage of college graduates are
So the coasts are better educated. Take that for what you will.
So how about more "American"? More "Patriotic"? Well, if you measure patriotism by blind allegiance to Mr. Bush and his agenda, then I would have to say that the south wins. I mean, when I was visiting my folks in
But how about we gauge it by a different yardstick? How about if we judge it by the yardstick of voting? Actually getting off of your ass and going to the polls on election day?
The five states with the highest voter turnout in presidential elections are
So the south and the middle of the country votes less than the coasts. Is there a better rubric for measuring patriotism? By the way, a note to my loved one in Kansas who frets that no matter WHAT she and the other liberal-minded people in Kansas do, the Republicans will still carry the state… only 54% of Kansas' population tends to vote. A little more than half. I wonder what will happen if all of the liberals, bikers and hippies in
Now for the real sticky wicket – "morals".
It's really almost impossible to judge morality, so the yardsticks that I'll be using to measure this will be abortion rates, divorce rates, and teen pregnancy rates.
The states with the five highest abortion rates are
The states with the five lowest abortion rates are
So the coasts have a higher abortion rate than the middle of the country and the south.
Before we look at divorce, let's list the states where homosexual marriage is legal, since the conservatives insist that legalizing homosexual marriage presents a threat to heterosexual marriage. If you're gay and you want to get married, go to
So, with that in mind, the five states with the highest rates of divorce are
The five states with the lowest divorce rates are
So people in the south tend to get divorced the most – the people on the coast tend to get divorced the least.
Teen pregnancy rates are tough. People on the coast tend to be less embarrassed by teen pregnancy than people elsewhere, and therefore more tolerant of it. But let's see what the number say…
The five states with the highest teen pregnancy rates (or, more accurately, teen birth rates) are
The five states with the lowest teen pregnancy (birth) rates are
My adopted state of
So now, with that to chew over, can we please drop this coast vs. middle and south thing once and for all? It doesn't really mean anything, it just serves to further divide an already seriously divided country. Thanks.
Peace.
Randal
Do The Right Thing
Do you lie? No, I'm sure that you don't. I mean, you may tell your kids to tell that bill collector on the phone that you're not home, but that's not really LYING, is it? And then, there are those times that you called in sick even though you really weren't. But that wasn't a lie because you were sick… OF WORK! BAM! Right?
What about traffic violations? Do you speed? Well, THAT'S okay because everyone does that. And that's why they make radar detectors, right? So that you can speed all you want? What about running red lights? Well, they're not really RED when you start to go through, right? At least not that you saw.
And what about stealing? You'd never steal, right? I mean there's that pirated cable, and those bootleg CD's and DVD's, yeah? But that's not really stealing, is it? I mean, it's not like you went into the store and lifted them.
What I'm talking about here is ethics, plain and simple. Ethical behavior. Doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do.
NOT GETTING CAUGHT DOES NOT EQUAL NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG.
It kind of amazes me that the "law and order" party, the Republicans, have turned into the party of "I didn't do anything wrong. Unless I get caught. Then it's either all a misunderstanding or it's someone else's fault. We have the most lawless administration in the White House that we have EVER had, and all of this has led to a flagrantly lawless society. No, there's not rape and murder in the street, but just this kind of sense of moral laxness. And no, again, I'm not talking about morals here as being the neo-cons two favorite whipping horses, homosexuality and abortion, I'm talking about TRUE morals… the simple knowledge of right from wrong.
Let me be completely clear here… I am not saying that I do nothing wrong. I do. I am a human being and, therefore, imperfect. But when I do, I do not attempt to justify it to myself. I do not say "It's okay because…" I know that it's wrong. And really, ultimately, it's not the doing wrong that I have such a huge problem with. It's the justification.
The reasoning? I find with myself that if I do not justify… if I simply say "This is wrong, but I'm doing it anyway", then I do less things wrong. If I justify, then it doesn't FEEL wrong, so it's easier to keep doing wrong.
Make sense?
Peace.
Randal
Kid Friendly
If you see a film that says "rated PG-13" advertised in the paper that your ten-year-old wants to see, you'd probably take them to see it, right? I mean, how bad could it be rated PG-13?
Now, what if you saw the same film ad, but the rating was D(h)(c)S(i)B(i) (which you would see from the legend meant death by hanging including a child, sexual innuendo and implied bestiality). Would you still take them to see it? It's the same movie – Pirates of the Carribean at World's End. And that was only in the first fifteen minutes of the film. Right off the top, we see a boy of about twelve hanged – he has to be stood on an upturned bucket to reach the noose – Keira Knightly forced to strip (off camera), and the suggestion that Johnny Depp had sexual knowledge of a goat.
At what point did we lose the concept that there are certain things that are inappropriate for our kids to be exposed to?
I keep hearing this bullshit that kids have "changed". Wrong. WE have changed them through laziness. Let me ask you people in your forties and fifties… do you think that OUR kids, the kids in their twenties and thirties are as good as we were at their age? I mean in general… I KNOW that your kids are excellent. And what about their kids? You know, the ones that you can't pry away from Grand Theft Auto long enough to have a conversation with them and can't concentrate on anything that takes more than five minutes EXCEPT Grand Theft Auto?
I'm the first to admit that my generation made lousy parents. We were distracted and self-involved. So our kids grew up shiftless and aimless, especially the boys. No sense of responsibility because we didn't GIVE them any responsibility. And the part that makes me the most anxious is that, for the most part, the men that these boys grew into know this and don't care. Ask one of them about "Knocked Up" or "The Forty-Year Old Virgin" and they'll freely admit that it accurately reflects their lives.
So what are we going to do? Well, what I can suggest is that you DISCIPLINE YOUR KIDS. Limit the amount of time that they spend playing games, watching TV, etc. Set their Xbox, Playstation and DVD player so that they can't watch R rated movies or play M rated video games.
I know… I've mentioned this stuff before. What can I say? I think that it bears repeating.
Peace.
Randal
Craiglist Dating
As I walked into work the other day, I passed two beautiful young co-workers chatting as they stocked some stuff. One of them said to the other "I can't imagine looking for a date on Craigslist."
At first I was a little wounded. After all, I HAVE looked for dates on Craigslist. I also have a profile at the dating website okcupid.com (http://www.okcupid.com/profile/RentonRandal). But then I thought "Well, you can't imagine doing that because you're young, beautiful and female." I saw this girl go through two relationships before she found the man that she married. As soon as she broke up with one guy, guys more or less lined up to take her out.
I am not young.
Although I consider myself rather handsome, I am not beautiful.
I am not female.
Women are not lining up to go out with rather handsome, middle-aged men. Or, allow me to qualify that. Women in whom I would be interested in pursuing a relationship are not lining up to go out with rather handsome, middle-aged men.
I have had it postulated to me that I am being "too picky". That could be. After all, to steal a line from Robert
Here's where the conflicts mostly come in…
A lot of women my age are looking to settle down. NOW! Go out on a date on Friday, meet her parents on Saturday, get married on Sunday. Yikes. A fair number of women my age are suspicious of us because a lot of single guys my age are just looking for young women with whom to have sex. And ladies, let's face it… I don't mean to be rude here… but there's a weight problem. Now I'm not talking about women who are carrying around a few extra pounds. I'm carrying around a few extra pounds, and frankly I like that from a physical perspective. It gives women those curves that I like so much. It also indicates to me that they're not gym and health food obsessed. I'm talking about A WEIGHT PROBLEM. Like hard to sit in a bucket seat, can't fit in a theatre seat, has to pay for two tickets on a plane because she takes up more than one seat weight problem. Okay? And no, ladies – simply because you choose to eat the entire menu at McDonald's every day and drive to your mailbox instead of walking does NOT mean that you are a BBW (big, beautiful woman) or that we have to accept you that way. You want to see a big, beautiful woman? Look at Camryn Manheim. Look at Kate Dillon, the model. Look at Queen Latifah. So, although I respect that you have the right to live in such a way that will cause you innumerable health problems and death from a heart attack by the time that you're fifty, I have the right not to date you. I met one woman on Criagslist, for instance, who described herself in her ad as "chubby". No pic. Okay, I can do "chubby". We started to talk, and it soon became apparent that she has some real issues with her weight. It was almost all that she wanted to talk about. I had to keep steering the conversation away from it. She then told me that she weighs 180 pounds. No problem. I can deal with that. A few days later, she revealed that she had lied, and she actually weighs 280 pounds. Two problems: don't lie to me and 280 pounds is by no stretch of the imagination "chubby". I'm a six foot two male and I don't weigh 280 pounds. Weight problem.
Another thing that presents an issue for me is intelligence, or lack thereof. I love intelligence. If we can talk about almost anything for so long that we lose track of time, I'm likely to fall in love with you. And I'm not talking about education here. Most of my education is self-inflicted and I know MANY college-educated idiots. (An interesting side note – the root word from which we get "idiot", idiota, referred to a person "declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government". So when I call you people who don't vote "idiots", don't take it personally – I'm just taking the word back to it's roots.) There seems to be a lot of confusion about what intelligence means, so let me clarify. Intelligence is your ability to gain new knowledge. It has nothing to do with what you KNOW, but rather what you CAN know. What you DO know is "knowledge". To me, gaining new knowledge is an ongoing process. I try to gain new knowledge every day. What I know does not make me intelligent, being intelligent makes me capable of being knowledgeable. A person who lacks knowledge on a subject (as we all do on one topic or another) is ignorant on that topic. And no, ignorant is not an insult, although it can be used in an insulting fashion. I, for instance, am almost entirely ignorant about the workings of an internal-combustion engine. I am also ignorant of the rules of the British games cricket and rugby. I could learn these things if chose to take the time do so, I simply haven't yet. So if I refer to you as possessing "ignorance", please don't take this as an insult. I am simply saying that you have the opportunity to learn about whatever topic we're discussing. So why is this an issue? There are a
And all of this begs the question – how on Earth do you meet people? I can't imagine that bars are a good place to meet a woman to settle down with. I don't, as a rule, like bars and can't imagine spending my life with a woman who does. The movies? Not the best place to strike up a conversation unless you enjoy hearing "SHHHHH!" I go to the library a lot, and think that I could be happy with a library patron, but again, how do you strike up a conversation in a place where you're not supposed to talk? I have approached women in the supermarket, on the street, etc., that I'm attracted to and am usually met with a cold shoulder. I don't date co-workers, I think that's a mess waiting to happen. Case in point being that's how I met my ex-wife. So what does that leave? Near as I can tell, speed-dating or the internet. I've not yet done the speed-dating thing, but will be willing to give it a try the next time that I have $200 burning a hole in my pocket (the typical cost of a session). Also, it just sounds like fun.
So I guess that I'll close this with a quick note to the young, beautiful people who can't imagine looking for a date on Craigslist: "Count your blessings. Be happy that you don't HAVE to consider this. It may not always be the case."
Peace.
Randal
Let's NOT Talk About Global Warming
I'm sick of the so-called "debate" over global warming (which should more properly be called "global climate change"). We're doing it, we're not doing it, we're contributing to it, but not enough to make a difference, it's going to happen fast, it's going to happen slow, we can change it or we can't…
I received a forwarded e-mail today from a loved one containing a piece by the Weather Channel's chief meteorologist about how global warming is ending and we're about to start on a period of global cooling. I have to view this through the filter of the knowledge that this loved one is kind of a typical selfish, materialistic, Christian-when-it-suits-her, lazy, greedy American. (I love her, but hey – I've got to call it where I see it, you know? Ask another loved one of mine about the amount of shit that I've given him for voting for Bush, even after he proved himself to be a bad guy in 2004.)
So let's set global warming aside for a second, okay? Let's talk about the essentials rather than the excuses. Let's talk about the things that the greens are asking us to do and the reds are defying…
USE LESS PLASTIC. That's it. Buy less shit in plastic, and either get paper bags (most of which contain 60 to 70 per cent recycled material) or use reusable bags. They're cheap, typically less than a dollar each and MUCH stronger than either paper or plastic. And the plastic that you must use, recycle. It's not all that hard.
EAT LESS PROCESSED, SHIPPED FOOD – EAT MORE LOCAL, FRESH FOOD. Not only is this good for the planet, it's also good for you. Good for your body. When you buy a can of green beans in the store, almost all of the nutrients have been stripped from them. What has been put in their place? Salt – and a lot of it. When you eat "fresh" green beans that have been shipped from
DRIVE LESS – WALK MORE. How many young Americans have to die for oil before we've said "enough"? How many more terrorist attacks have to be perpetrated on our soil by Saudi citizens fed up with
So, now you've seen how much of a positive change these relatively simple things can have on your life and our economy even taking global warming entirely out of the equation. Now, if these changes do nothing for our environment, what have you lost? They certainly won't have a negative impact. If they have a positive impact, what have you gained?
Peace.
Randal
"News"
I was seriously worried about three window washers in
Now, here's my question… why do I give a crap about three window washers stranded by their scaffolding in
A former girlfriend of mine got pissed as hell at me about the Virginia Tech shooting, which happened when we were together. I noticed, a few days after the shooting, that the flags were flying at half-staff. I never connected the two. I kind of wondered out loud "Who died? The flags are at half-staff." Gerald Ford had recently died, but I knew that his mourning period had passed. She said "It's for the Virginia Tech victims." Being the person that I am, I said "But flying the flags at half-staff is only for a day of national mourning, like the loss of a president or a hero." She said "This IS a day of national mourning."
Really.
Why?
I have (or had, I've lost track of them) family in
This beast called the 24-hour news cycle is eating our brains and our ability to empathize alive. I have to empathize with people whom I've never met… will probably NEVER meet who live a continent away from me? Even more – I have to mourn their losses for days on end? Fuck that.
Here's what I picture for a slow news day on CNN:
Blazing graphic on the screen that says "Treed Cat Watch – MINUTE 2!"
"It's been a trying two minutes here, waiting to see what's going to happen to the cat in the tree in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Let's go now to our man on the scene, Ace Hoel. Ace? What's the situation there?"
"Thank you, Don Knowjack. That's right, I'm joining the vigil here in
"Oh, Ace, it's been so grueling waiting here to see what's going to happen with Fluffers. I blame violent video games and rap music for driving her up that tree."
"You heard it here first, folks. Rap music and violent video games are to blame for Fluffers being in the tree. We are now entering minute three of "Treed Cat Watch", and.. wait… there's some movement in the tree… Jim, are you taping this? Yes, there's movement and she's… SHE'S DOWN! SHE'S SAFE! Oh, thank God. This is a great day for cats everywhere. A tearful reunion for Fluffers and Mary after a seemingly endless three minutes and fifteen seconds. Back to you, Don."
"Thank you, Ace. We now have in our studio five political analysts to discuss the impact of the so-called "Fluffers" incident on John McCain and black presidential candidate Barak Hussein Obama, who's black. Did we mention that Obama's black? And that his middle name is Hussein?"
Jeez. But don't worry about it, guys. Whatever story they're obsessing over today, you won't have to worry about it for long. They NEVER finish the stories. Remember Nathalie Holloway, the girl who went missing in the
How about this, guys? Let's start worrying only about the things that really affect us. Caring about the things that we REALLY care about. For me, I'm going to make a commitment to you not to watch anymore CNN, Headline News, Fox News (that, at least will be easy) and only seeking out news about the things that really affect me. I mean, Jeez, you'd never know from watching those stations that we're at war or that some members of Congress are actually trying to take action against the criminal Bush administration.
Those are things that I really care about.
Peace.
Randal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)