Author: AR

“The Bible.  We’ll just talk about the Bible for a second.  People often point out that they can’t help it, they can’t help with the anti-gay bullying ‘cause it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans, that being gay is wrong.  We can learn to ignore the bullsh*t in the Bible and what it says about gay people, the same way, the same way we have learned to ignore the bullsh*t in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation.  We ignore bullsh*t in the Bible about all sorts of things.

The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document.  Slave owners waved Bibles over their heads during Civil War and justified it.  The shortest book in the New Testament is a letter from Paul to a Christian slave owner about owning his Christian slave, and Paul doesn’t say, ‘Christians don’t own people.’  Paul talks about how Christians own people.  We ignore what the Bible says about slavery because the Bible got slavery wrong… if the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong, slavery, what are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong?  100%…

People are dying because they can’t clear this one last hurdle.  They can’t clear this one last thing in the Bible about human sexuality… [continuing, as dozens are quietly now walking out..]  It’s funny as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-assed some people react.” 

Such were the words of Dan Savage, an anti-bullying advocate, especially in the gay & lesbian community, speaking at the National High School Journalist Conference in Seattle on Friday.

Friends, as said here several times, human sexuality is a tough issue; it’s tough to handle well.  The Intramuralist has friends engaged in multiples lifestyles, and as some of us have discussed, this is hard to talk about; people confuse disagreement with disrespect.  They aren’t the same.

What concerns me most about Savage’s words — founder of the “It Gets Better” project, an encourager of gay teens to persevere, supported by various celebrities, activists and politicians — is not his stance on homosexuality.  It’s his savage approach.

When we disagree with other people, is it appropriate to attack them?  Is it appropriate, in a sense, to verbally bully them?  … to disparage them or to regard or represent them as being of little worth?  Savage not only demeans the people who disagree with him, but also to embolden his point, he denigrates and distorts the source.

Choose not to believe in the Bible.  Choose this day who you’ll serve.  Choose to agree or disagree with it’s teachings.  But to suggest that the chances of historical scripture being wrong are “100%” means one also inherently proclaims that oneself is infallible.  The lack of humility within that proclamation thinly veils an unfortunate foolishness.

I am not suggesting that Savage is right or wrong in his passion regarding the lack of limits on human sexuality; he is entitled to his passionate perspective.  He is, however, factually inaccurate in how he presents the contents of scripture, especially, for example, in regard to slavery.  The Bible does not condemn slavery; neither does it advocate the brutality and dehumanization that has manifested in the minds of contemporary culture.  The Bible teaches against slavery as we know it.

I thus wrestle with the reeling discomfort when Savage or any man claims to be more knowing and knowledgeable than God.  I wrestle also with the distortion.

Friends, I have many flaws.  Contrary to not-even-popular belief, I don’t know it all.  And there are things within the Bible that are far too wonderful for me, that I cannot even begin to comprehend.

But never will I equate my lack of comprehension to a personal omniscience…  me, this fairly insightful, witty blogger knowing exactly what is right and exactly what is wrong… me, knowing more or better than God… me, knowing it all… me, being able to claim a lack of comprehension of scripture as a definitive proclamation.  I will never proclaim a wisdom all according to “me.”

So in those areas where each of us disagree — where our passions and experience have challenged us in varied manners and ways — I make one promise:  I will never call you “pansy-assed.”  I won’t think it either.

Disagreement is not the same as disrespect — and the intentional employment of disrespect and distortion only decreases the validity of one’s perspective.

Respectfully,

AR

[Originally posted in June of 2009.]

Yes, I am fearful we are going nuts.

There are all sorts of them.  Cashews, almonds, walnuts, brazils, filberts, peanuts, pine, and pecans…  There exist immeasurable means of preparation.  Dry roasted, honey roasted, salted, shelled, redskin, blanched, granulated, not to mention that wonderful cinnamon glazed.

Next we must choose what form we desire the protein to come in… whole, half, pieces, mixed…  It certainly makes it hard to choose.  Some are grouped together via creative packaging; some are not available at the local grocer; some are available only from preferred networks.  And some people, too, are allergic, making eating and obtaining nuts currently impossible.

I am sorry to say, but the cost of nuts has soared.  I remember boiled peanuts from Plains, Georgia being significantly less expensive 25 years ago.  It is challenging to continue paying more for protein… something that gives us the energy to go on and keeps our bodies in solid shape (thank you, Dr. Atkins).

And so perhaps we should control the ebb and flow of nuts in this country.  Perhaps we should socialize both its production and availability.  If we overhaul the nut system in this country, perhaps we could save billions!  Hail, Plains!  We need our nuts!!

Socialism has said to work.  At least somewhere.  Europe maybe?  But aren’t they now severely struggling financially?

Hmmm… forgive my tinge of sarcasm, friends, but the Intramuralist is concerned with the promotion of socialism in this country — government ownership and control of industries…  especially now, as I foresee 2 significant hiccups (in addition to the gestational reactions):

Hiccup #1:  The nut system overhaul claims to save us billions but cost us trillions.  It is money we do not have.  Do you know where our government currently finds its bill-paying, auspicious pot of gold?  We continue to borrow money from China, and frankly, the Chinese are not known to be crazy about our nuts.  (They have also been known not to be crazy about our human rights.)

My friends, no single entity in this country is allowed to operate at a continual, annual loss without either being eliminated or going bankrupt.  For the US government to continue borrowing — and to justify specific entitlements being an exception to the rule — it is worrisome indeed… even if it is simply about nuts.

Hiccup #2:  If the government controls the nuts, the government will discern which nuts are worthy — and which are expendable.  Since the initial nut costs are nothing short of outrageous, they cannot afford to take care of the nut-eaters who are a perceived financial drain on the system.  In other words, the government will be picking out the pistachios.  Perhaps, in fact, the pistachios will no longer exist.  We will then as a country miss out on what even a green, little nut can contribute to our culture.

People who need nuts should get nuts.  Even Macadamia.  But government assuming control of everyone’s protein choice seems arguably Orweillian.  If the control seizing also entails the utilization of a checkbook with zero money left in the account, then financial foolishness is an added, incredibly valid question.

Time to snack on the Thai lime chili cashews in my cupboard.  Perhaps the break will enable me to refrain from acknowledging all the nuts involved in this process.

Respectfully,

AR

One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. “Master,” he said, “let me put my nose in your tent. It’s cold and stormy out here.” “By all means,” said the Arab, “and welcome” as he turned over and went to sleep.

A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, “I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here.” “Yes, you may put your forelegs within,” said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

Finally, the camel said, “May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do.” “Yes, yes,” said the Arab. “Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us.” So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself.

[Special thanks to CamelStories.com for “The Camel’s Nose in the Tent”]

The metaphorical camel’s nose illustrates the potential worsening of a situation when small, questionable scenarios are initially permitted. The allowance of the nose in the tent creates the potential for a scenario never imagined, but possibly dire.

Where — albeit by gradual steps — have we possibly witnessed the protrusion of the “camel’s nose”?  Help me here.  This is honest wrestling.  My desire is not to persuade nor embolden; the Intramuralist’s desire is to respectfully dialogue and thus grow.

Where have we permitted scenarios to exist that may potentially evolve into the camel taking over the tent?  Where have we promoted an initial, specific desire, policy, or behavior that as it progresses, manifests itself as a progression of wrongful thinking?

On Tuesday, we discussed the argument for after-birth abortion, the process of intentionally killing a newborn.  When abortion was legalized in all states in 1973, did the Supreme Court foresee that less than 30 years later, some in academia would seriously consider the legalization of killing babies outside the womb?  … that some would intentionally desire to reframe “infanticide,” calling the procedure “after-birth abortion” instead — in order to minimize the moral argument?  Was that recognized as a potentially offensive protrusion?

“If the camel…”

Consider the federal government’s routine practice of deficit spending.  When Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of Treasury under President Washington, arguably first proposed incurring debt for the purpose of establishing credit, did Hamilton foresee a 21st century government that is now almost $16 trillion dollars in debt?  Did those who advocated the exercise envision that spending within our means may become a secondary priority to spending itself?

“… once gets his nose…”

What else, friends?  Tell me.  Again, I do not assume to know all, but where else does the animal nose begin to reek?

Pick your social issue.  Pick your fiscal practice.  Pick your societal evolution.  Where has the practice gone too far?  Where has the initial acceptance been possibly ethical, but the potential progression is now imprudent?

“… in the tent…”

Borrowing from China?  Negative campaigning?  A 2 party system?  Acceptance of adultery?  Violence and sex on TV?  No prayer in schools?  … Where are the camels, friends?  I don’t claim to know all of the above.  I only ask the question in order to avoid the slippery slope of potential foolish and unethical activity.  Otherwise…

“… his body will soon follow.”

Respectfully,

AR

As a current events observer in search of wisdom (or yes, also, a lack of it), every so often an issue evolves that causes far more than a pregnant pause.  In order to accurately dissect the wisdom, allow me to first share the facts.  I will omit emotive expression… at least initially.

In the Journal of Medical Ethics released 6-8 weeks ago, 2 Australian philosophers argued the case for “after-birth abortion.”  Note that I did not write “partial-birth abortion.”  “Partial-birth” is a term created by the pro-life movement.  The term “after-birth abortion” was put forth by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.  They propose the following:

“When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible…  We propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus… rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”

The authors stated desire is to reframe infanticide.  In their argument, the philosophers suggest that any maternal interest trumps the value of the newborn.  Actually, identifying the baby as a “newborn” is not always their choice of words.  They write…

“If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all…  In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions.”

The baby born is referred to by the 2 intelligent philosophers as a “non-person.”  Not “an actual person.”

The above are the facts.  Now the emotion.

Are you kidding me?!  

A “non-person”?

“No reason” to ban the practice?

“No harm at all”?

Where is the line between infanticide and abortion?  When does murder come into play?

(Note that this coming Thursday, the Intramuralist will again address society’s ethical “slippery slope.”  This will serve as example #1.  Egad.)

After substantial outrage, no less, to this after-birth article (which the Journal of Medical Ethics has since pulled from public viewing), the authors attempted to extinguish the growing firestorm, suggesting the proposal was never intended for public view; it was solely meant to be an “academic debate” among “fellow bioethicists” already familiar with the topic and arguments.

But tell me, why in academia do the proclaimed most intelligent believe the killing of life is even an appropriate debate?  Regardless for who this debate was intended, how can such proposal be deemed ethical by any?

The Intramuralist concludes with a few familiar refrains:  first, intelligence and wisdom are definitely not equal.  There is no wisdom in this debate, regardless of with whom it takes place and how supposedly smart the participants are.  Intelligence and wisdom are not synonyms, a fact of which academia often seems unaware.

And second, allow me to ask:  who are we to demean the value of someone else’s life?  Whether that be due to income?  … race?  … gender?  … or in this case, a newborn babe?

A person.  An actual person.  Life.

Respectfully,

AR