An Apology Because I Don’t Trust You

Dr. Robert Spitzer has apologized to the gay community for a ten-year old study which claimed some gays could, through reparative therapy, go straight. He now says the study was flawed because how can one know for sure if the people who claimed to have changed were actually telling the truth. He says this despite earlier believing that certain aspects of the accounts couldn’t simply be dismissed. All fine and well. Except for one thing. If we can’t trust someone who claims they have gone straight, how can we trust someone who says they are gay?

Does he think the people who claimed they had changed were lying, confused, deceived, pressured? Why can’t those same criteria be applied to those who say they are gay? I know, I’ve heard it before, why would anyone claim to be gay and undergo such backlash by family, friends, the church? Why humans put themselves into situations where they are persecuted is multifaceted. But what is clear by a cursory view of human behavior both now and throughout history is that humans often do things for inexplicable reasons that bring them trouble. And they often do things for inexplicable reasons that allow them to remain “safe” and out of trouble, as is claimed of those who were changed through reparative therapy.

To say that those who were changed from gay to straight were wrong—for whatever reason—invites the same query of those who claim they are gay in the first place. For good or ill, this conversation needs to have a level playing field.

Interpretation and Dialogue?

After President Obama’s announcement that he supports the right of homosexuals to marry, people have weighed in on both sides with renewed fervor. Or does it just seem that way? The dialogue (if we dare call it that) has been going on for a long time; though, I’m not sure dialogue is the right word. It is more along the lines of sound bites and rehashed phrases with little substantive argument on either side, at least in the public square.

For instance, NPR has an article front and center today—2nd article, middle column. The article shows people on both sides of the issue using the Bible for their purposes. The article even has someone quoting the oft used line,

“‘When you read the Bible, you can find justification for almost anything,’ she says, ‘including slavery, the subjection of women and an argument that the sun actually revolves around the earth.’” The she is Susan Russell, an Episcopal priest in California. This is true of course; you can find justification for almost anything—if you take things out of context, which is what many Christians do who are on both sides of this issue—and lots of other issues as well.

For instance (rabbit trail alert!), someone this morning sent me a link for a man who was coming to the area to talk about prophecy. So, I went to his website to confirm the fact that I wasn’t going to hear him. He too was weighing in on the homosexual marriage issue (ok, so it’s not that big of a rabbit trail), but with a different slant: why Jesus was coming back soon. And he used the Bible to show why. But his use of the Bible was no different than Susan Russell’s. He, too, pulled things out of context. You can read the article here, but here is a summary of his logic.

1) God destroyed Sodom for their homosexuality. 2) The author says, “Jesus said as the days of Lot so will it [sic] be the time when I return to the earth.” 3) Therefore, since homosexuality is prevalent now as it was then, Jesus must be returning soon.

Ok, let’s break down this logic. 1) While homosexuality (actually, I think there is an argument for rampant sexual perversion, not just homosexuality) was evident in Sodom, that is not the reason for it’s destruction. The sexual perversion of the day was a part of a greater spiritual issue. In Ezekiel 16 we read that Sodom’s pride, material prosperity, and love of pleasure (including sexual perversion) was her downfall. The author has failed to consider the context of not only Genesis but the narrative of the Old Testament as a whole. 2 & 3) The author takes the “days of Lot” phrase out of its context in Luke 17. Jesus was not referring to their sin, but to their going on with life without a care in the world. They were simply going on with the daily activities of life without ever realizing that they were in peril. That is how it will be when Jesus returns, nothing unusual going on. This is sloppy logic and sloppy reading.

Now back to Russell’s quote. The slavery issue is beyond complex. I think she is wrong—with qualifications, but this post would get really, really long, and that misses the point. The other two: subjugation of women and the earth revolving around the sun (did she really say that?) are another issue. People have believed the Bible says this in part because, I think, Christians have acted that way. Therefore, we assume the Bible gave them permission to do so. Yet, the Bible does not, anywhere give Christians permission to subjugate women, nor does the Bible say the sun revolves around the earth, any more than I say it does when I remark, “What a beautiful sunrise!” To use the subjugation of women issue when bringing up homosexuality is not to give the Bible a clear reading. To use the sun/earth example is a subtle attempt, without any rational support, to paint people who are opposed to homosexual marriage as flat earthers, i.e, ignorant. The irony there is palpable.

What is interesting is the author of the article also jumps into the fray, saying that the Bible condones polygamy (which again comes from a failure to read the Bible in context), without giving any justification. Which is another problem I have. People on both sides of issues invoke the authority of the Bible without giving any meaningful proof. And then people say, “You can justify almost anything with the Bible.”

Actually, you can’t, and to throw out that sound bite in hopes of silencing an opponent shows an inability to engage in rational conversation in hopes of changing someone’s mind. We have lost the art of civil discourse in this nation. And we have lost the art of rational discussion. My hope is that we could return to a rational, civil dialogue and engage the Bible in its context without picking and choosing what we like.

I

What the People Want

The French elections have brought an end to Sarkozy’s presidency. I am wondering how far away we are here in America from the types of comments that were reported. It seems at least some of the people didn’t really like the president-elect Hollande, but liked Sarkozy even less. With the debt crisis in Europe (and here as well), one would think that people would vote economics. But it seems that maybe they just don’t have what it takes to endure the pain that will cause. So at least lets be happy while the ship sinks.

“Another Paris voter highlighted this anti-Sarkozy vote, saying she’s backing Hollande, even though his program is ‘suicidal.’”

And the same idea, though worded a little differently…

“‘He’ll raise the minimum wage, increase civil servants. But France is already in debt,’ said Florence Macrez. His fiscal reform project will only increase the pressure especially on the middle class, she added.”

What this screams is not a love of socialism, as some will undoubtedly say, but a vast hopelessness. I would agree that socialist agendas (Hollande wants to raise taxes and increase government spending) have led to the debt crisis, and that people do get used to being cared for by the government to their own detriment, but this just feeds an existence that has been fed so many lies for so long that what has resulted is a hopelessness that pervades all.

The humanist philosophy, which at one time said that man was the measure of all things, has turned on itself and now detests who man is. And the masses have believed it (at least about everyone else). So now they just seek for things to be calm, as one voter put it:

“On behalf of my compatriots, I felt quite insulted. He was so aggressive. I hope things will calm down.”

I met a woman in church one time who said she was leaving because the new pastor seemed too excited. She said church was a place to be calm. She just wanted to come and not be bothered, not convicted, not forced to think. She just wanted to sit and have someone soothe her for an hour. I don’t know if that is the sentiment of the French, but those quotes certainly make it seem that way. Hopefully Hollande can soothe them all as the ship sinks.

Tree Obituary

MSNBC is now running obituaries new stories about trees. At least it seems that way, “The Colorado blue spruce passed away ‘due to complications resulting from transplant shock….’ Born on a tree farm in New Jersey…”

I don’t mind knowing that the National Christmas Tree died. I would even say it was newsworthy; the lighting of the National Christmas Tree has been a tradition since 1923. But to be quite honest, it seemed that the personification of the tree with phrases like “passed away” and “born” gave it an almost comic feel. Surely that was not the intent of the author.

Rationalization, Sort Of

A fourteen year old girl is upset because she doesn’t appreciate Seventeen magazine doctoring their photos. “I want to see regular girls that look like me in a magazine that is supposed to be for me.” I won’t go into the potential problems with that statement because I want to focus on the justification of the writer of the article of Seventeen altering photos.

The writer of the article justifies the behavior of the magazine saying, “While we agree that excessive Photoshop work is indeed a problem in the magazine world, Seventeen is hardly the biggest culprit.” The author also goes on to say that the airbrushing they do is minimal. Whatever you think about the pros and cons and the business side of the decision (and it is a business decision), to rationalize a choice by saying it is not as bad as what others do and by saying it’s really minimal, is missing the point entirely. The author should have just spoken the truth by saying that Seventeen feels they have to airbrush in a world where everyone is doing it.

Bush on the Ballot in San Francisco: Part II

Yesterday, I quipped that some in San Francisco were hoping to vote George W. Bush into an environmentalist. In reality, they intend far different. They hope to shame him. They hope to humiliate him. They hope to dishonor him. Today, I want to address this facet of American life that knows no political affiliation.

First, God clearly mandates that we give honor to those who hold positions of authority in our lives. Naming a sewage facility after a sitting President for spite does not fit into this category. Now, before the conservative side of my readership (all two of you) cheer, we must remember that those who do not hold the power often imitate their predecessors when they take over. Note this post to see my point. You see, the liberals watched for eight years as conservatives ridiculed, belittled, and dishonored President Clinton. With Rush as their champion, conservatives held the power position of dishonoring speech. The liberals are following the conservatives’ lead.

How do you treat those in authority over you? From your boss at work, to the mayor, to your legislator, to the President, how do you speak of him or her? Do you pray for this person? Do you laugh along with the jokes, however crass?

Now, I do not believe that God’s desire to honor those in leadership means we do not have the right to question and disagree. It must not be done, however, in a dishonoring way. Many vehemently disagree with Bush’s handling of foreign policy. They have the right to speak their minds, to seek the truth, to seek to vote him out of office. Spewing venom, harboring bitterness, and performing actions out of spite do not solve any problems.

Will naming a sewage plant after Bush really resolve people’s feelings about the war in Iraq? Will it make someone feel better? Will it reverse eight years of foreign policy? No. If this passes, it will make San Francisco look like a little boy, sticking his tongue out at his older brother for keeping a secret. The older brother will head off to the ranch, ignoring his brother. The little brother, however, will find that his tongue won’t go back in, and he’ll walk around looking silly for a long time. 

Bush on the ballot in San Francisco

Residents of San Francisco have a big decision ahead of them. Come November, many will be voting for George W. Bush. 

No, Obama hasn’t picked Bush to be his Vice-President. It seems some want to rename the water pollution control plant (that’s a sewage plant for those of you like me who come from a small town) after him. 

We think that it’s important to remember our leaders in the right historical context,” said McConnell, a member of the group that was formed after friends came up with the renaming idea. ”In President Bush’s case, we think that we will be cleaning up a substantial mess for the next 10 or 20 years,” he said. “The sewage treatment facility’s job is to clean up a mess, so we think it’s a fitting tribute.”

The public utilities commission spokesman had this to say about the idea:

The plant that they’re seeking to rename really offers extraordinary environmental benefits.

So there you have it. The people of San Francisco can now use the power of the ballot box to turn Bush into an environmentalist. 

Tune in tomorrow for a different take on this story.

Texas vs. The World

The World Court has ordered the U.S. to stay the execution of some Mexican Nationals, one of which is Jose Medellin. It seems Mexico appealed to the World Court on behalf of this (and others) confessed murderer and rapist of two teenage girls because he and his gang buddies were denied help from their consulate following their arrest. Texas, however, has thumbed its nose at the World Court and President Bush. The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Texas, telling Bush he has no authority to tell a state court to comply with a ruling from the Hague. 

The article ended saying the World Court had no authority to enforce its rulings. I wonder how long that will last.

I’m sorry—I got caught.

Jesse Jackson had to apologize to Barack Obama for a crude comment he made when he thought the microphone was turned off. It seems Jackson doesn’t appreciate Obama spending time talking to the black community about morality. Once again, Jackson shows his lack of integrity. Would he have thought to apologize had he not been overheard? He later goes on to say that more important issues than morality threaten the black community like unemployment and the number of blacks in prison. Yet wouldn’t the morality issue deal with both of these to some degree? Jackson does not appear to be interested in integrity, thus Obama’s morality speeches would likely anger Jackson. Jackson is interested in saving face, not the black community.

Saving money or loving others?

I read an interesting article here and a fuller article here about the practice of hypermiling (adjusting one’s driving habits to achieve optimal fuel efficiency). While hypermiling can certainly save lots of money and gas, I have some serious reservations about the methods used. While the article did bring up some safety issues in regards to using your cruise control instead of your gas and break, turning off the engine at various times during your drive, and taking turns at high speed instead of using your break to keep momentum, the overriding message of hypermilers was “save money at any cost.”

On my way into school this morning, I was thinking about the article and my driving habits. I’m not one to speed or practice jack rabbit starts, but as I was driving, I wondered about the effect on other drivers if I put into practice some of the tricks of the trade of hypermilers. One, which doesn’t appear to be a safety issue is coasting for as long as possible, especially when you see a red light in the distance. Certainly, if this were practiced with consistency, mpg’s would rise. However, another issue came immediately to mind. I was a good distance from a light and wondered what it would be like to coast to it instead of having my foot on the gas the whole way and then applying the break at the last minute. A car was sitting in the left turn lane facing the opposite direction waiting for me to pass. Had I taken my foot off the gas, the cars behind me would have caught up to me enough to prevent this person from turning left after I passed. 

I would have saved a little dough, but I would have inconvenienced another. That is not driving in love. The attitude of the hypermiler who was interviewed seemed  to be that his saving money and gas and thus the environment was more important than someone else being inconvenienced. He commented on how he sees how long he can coast (at a slower and slower speed) as he approaches his house on the way home despite the line of cars behind him. 

Nor was he concerned about taking the off ramp at 50 mph to allow him to coast a greater distance even though the speed limit was 25. Boosting mpg’s trumps traffic laws I suppose. While I would certainly be in favor of adopting some of the recommendations in the article, being a good driver does not mean I am only concerned about my mpg’s. It also means I am concerned about those around me. Just because someone doesn’t see the need to conserve energy, doesn’t mean I can be unconcerned about them as I drive.

If they hypermilers are so obsessed with increasing mpg’s, can I suggest a bicycle?