I've got a good bit on my mind this morning. I held back from posting anything negative about our nation yesterday (apart from a call to repentance - but that was me as a Christian, not as American; I would feel that way about whatever nation I called home). “Happy Birthday America - you suck!” just seemed inappropriate.
However, our nation does have many, many flaws. I'm not ready to discard her, by any means; but I see, at nearly every turn, her people and her government making the wrong decisions, and continuing her slide towards mediocrity and insecurity, under the guise of improving both. In nearly every issue, the underlying cause appears to me to be the same - an inability to dispassionately, rationally evaluate a situation, policy, etc. on its merits alone. This is displayed on both sides of the political divide, where talking points and comebacks are slung back and forth, and seems to be what passes for civil discourse. It isn't!
This originated as a Facebook post, but I thought it was more appropriate for the blog; heaven knows it's had some cobwebs for a while, and hits its tenth anniversary next month. Were I to blog each of these issues individually, though, I'd end up with thousands of words that no one would read, save to search it for keywords so they could post their comebacks in the comments (see above). Does it matter that I can't succinctly express what's on my mind? The problems I see aren't succinct problems with succinct solutions. An exclusively inward focus seems wrong; I should be trying to leave a better nation and world for my children, right?
But, as I look back at those nearly 10-year-old posts, the issues are the same. “Gay Bishops - A Big Deal?” Well, I (regrettably) have been vindicated in my view that this gave license for people to just ignore parts of the Bible with which they disagree; at this point, were a hair's breadth away from forcing people to behave in ways they feel are contrary to the Bible, because others disagree with parts of It. “The Ten Commandments - A Monumental Controversy” was about a man's personal decorations in his office, yet the intervening ten years have seen a continuing push to eliminate every vestige of our Christian heritage from the public square. “Abortion - A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Passed” has seen some progress as of late, but the Todd Akin/Wendy Davis dichotomy prove my point about civil discourse; neither side is immune. However, since that post, there is one political party that has decided they should be for it at any time, for any reason, at no cost. I'm no legal expert, but I don't think that was quite the point of Roe v. Wade, or even Griswold v. Connecticut. How does one rationally argue against such an irrational, yet quite passionately-held, position?
America is not beyond hope. We must change course, though, or we will find ourselves swimming in self-induced mediocrity, while we are crowing over how advanced we are. To get God's blessing, we must turn to Him; to elevate civil discourse, we must teach reasoning. (Morgan Freeberg had a great (and succinct!) summary of this where he dissects Dennis Prager's statement that he'd prefer clarity over agreement.)
p.s. The ambiguity in the title of this post is intentional; whichever meaning is appropriate will be up to us going forward.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Daniel J. Summers
This is the first or last post of our “2012 Year in Review: The Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous” series. 2012 wasn't all bad; let's take a look at how.
The London Olympics
London got a third turn to host the modern Olympic Games in 2012, and they did an outstanding job. The facilities were all first-rate. The opening and closing ceremonies both set new high bars, being spectacular without being cheesy. Security was also successful, with no violence or terrorist acts being committed during the games. Of course, seeing USA sitting atop the medal board at the end was an added bonus.
The only thing about the games that I would change would be the coverage. I'm not going into full #NBCfail mode, but they should have found a way to televise the games as they occurred, while still preserving their prime time “here's what we think you want to see” coverage. Rio lines up with the US, so that shouldn't be an issue as much; evening events can be broadcast live if they wanted.
Eat Mor Hate Chicken
In July, Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy, son of founder S. Truett Cathy, mentioned in a Baptist Press interview that the chain was supportive of the traditional definition of marriage. Judging from the reaction, you'd have thought that he had just introduced the new spicy sodomite sandwich! There were calls for all sorts of punitive actions against Chick-Fil-A, from boycotts to denying future permits. They also were attacked for giving charitable donations to "hate groups."* So why is this on the good list?
This is here because of what happened next. A groundswell of support arose for the purveyors of fine non-cow products, culminating in “Chick-Fil-A Day,” where every single restaurant had lines around the block as people came out to show their support. The protests two days later paled in comparison to the outpouring of support for the stand the Cathy family was willing to take. Meanwhile, many in the gay community “came out” (sorry, couldn't help it) in support of the restaurant, citing its employees' respect for every customer, and others spoke highly of the environment as an employee. Chick-Fil-A fought back against the “you donate to hate groups” charge, and the official boycott effort went by the wayside.
In a year where “same-sex marriage” won at the ballot box, and religious groups failed to get the government to amend “health care” requirements that violate their religion, Chick-Fil-A was a nice bright spot of support for traditional marriage and the right of business people to share their beliefs.
* Just a note, activists - if you call Focus on the Family a hate group, you really should educate yourself, and close your mouth so you don't completely destroy your credibility when you figure out how things actually are and start making sense.
Mark it down - 2012 proved that the mainstream media now makes no attempt at objective reporting. From the debate moderators, to the selective coverage of the party conventions, to the complete dearth of investigative reporting on Benghazi, it's like they just quit trying. When comedians other than Jay Leno are writing jokes about you, you've become a parody of yourself; and, when Jon “I can cuss, 'cause I'm edgy, but they can't broadcast it” Stewart makes more sense than you do, you are an embarrassment to the craft. But, these two facts have become so self-evident that even the American people can't miss it.
The bias is not the “good” part, but sunlight is the best disinfectant; the exposure of it (and embracing of it) is why this lands on the good list. Some journalists are starting to get it. While Jake Tapper (of ABC News in 2012, of CNN this year) has been the fairest MSMer for a while, this year saw many reporters, including CNN's Anderson Cooper, asking tough questions and refusing to allow dodging. Special recognition also goes to Univisión for their debate questions; the English-language moderators could learn from you.
Maybe we're almost to the point where liberals will actually see why criticizing “Faux News” with supporting links from The Huffington Post and Mother Jones aren't that convincing. And there lies the rub; you shouldn't restrict your reading to either “side.” Read the editorials with which you disagree, as well as the ones you like. Compare story selection among several news sources, and if there is a story missing, find out why. We have the tools now to easily do it, which may be the best part of all of this. You can be as informed as you want to be.
This past year was a great year for our family. In January, February, and March, we were able to do quite a bit of snow skiing. I and my two oldest sons conquered several black diamond runs and couple of double-blacks; I learned the trick to moguls (ski the tops, not the groove in between them); and even my 7 year old found blue and a couple of black diamond runs he could do. We're looking forward to more of that in the next few months, as our favorite ski area is ready!
In September, we were finally able to take a family cruise where one of our stops was letting our sons swim with stingrays in Grand Cayman. Michelle and I had done that back in 2006, and wanted them to experience it. We also visited Jamaica, where we had a surprisingly good time, and I celebrated my 39th birthday in Cozumel, Mexico. We got to cruise with the same couple with whom we cruised in 2006, and they also brought their family; it was great to spend time with them.
When we got back, we prepared to move. After living on a military base for nearly 10 years straight, we now have a place to live off base. Great friends here in Albuquerque got transferred overseas, and we are able to live in their house. It was a great blessing; we had begun to outgrow our current house. It is definitely nice to have a separation between “work” and “home” now; plus, now I'm not the guy who lives on base, who gets the calls to do stuff “because you're already there.” Win-win!
Finally, in November and early December, our family was able to participate in Hoffmantown Church's production of The Story, a dramatic musical presentation of the Christmas story, starting with creation and ending with the resurrection. We had never done anything like it; we usually were not around for it. But, since we were, we signed up. It was amazing! At the first rehearsal, I was not quite sure it was all going to come together, but each time, things got smoother, and by the time our final dress rehearsal came, we were ready. There were 450+ volunteers who worked, and over 6,500 people saw it. We are really looking forward to next year.
Of course, the 2013 production of The Story is still 11 months away; there's a lot of 2013 between now and then. I hope that I have much trouble narrowing down the few things to include in this post next year. Happy New Year!
Rahm Emanuel, former Chief of Staff in the Obama Administration and currently mayor of Chicago, seems to have his needle stuck declaring that certain things do not mesh with Chicago values. He is one of three mayors who, as of this writing, have said that Chick-Fil-A's owners' stance on gay marriage is incompatible with Chicago values, and he is currently supporting an alderman's decision to block a new Chick-Fil-A restaurant in his district. So, evidently, 97 jobs, a local franchisee, and southern hospitality for all is not consistent with their values simply because the corporation holds to 5,000-year-old beliefs on marriage that are consistent with every single in-context reading of the Bible that has ever been done.
Another thing that seems to be contrary to Chicago values is gang violence… that involves children. “We've got two gangbangers, one standing next to a kid. Get away from that kid. Take your stuff away to the alley…. It's all about values….” Lest I be accused of taking this out of context, he was interviewed and asked to clarify, and he confirmed the above as his meaning. So, the gang stuff needs to happen in the alleys. Interesting.
So, Rahm, how about this? We're a week removed from 12 killed and 58 wounded in Aurora, Colorado. But, if you take the two weekends before that, how's Chicago doing? 11 dead, 75 wounded. Aurora was an isolated incident; these are your bi-weekly statistics! What sort of values are those? Are the ones that happened in an alley between rival gangs OK?
If I were from Chicago, I would be outraged; surely these are not the values of most Chicagoans. Your inability to call evil for what it is cannot be termed a “value,” and neither can your ability to call good evil.
UPDATE: After I drafted this, but before it posted, Rahm clarified his remarks - as with the president's clarification of his remarks, and Rahm's clarification of the gang violence remarks, the clarification is little if any better than the original statement. The “blocking” of the restaurant was never from the mayor, but from an alderman.)
Today, our president announced that, in a 180-degree turn from his previous statements, he now favors “gay marriage.” There are several things about this entire situation that boggle the mind about this, and most of them come back to the inescapable fact that few other religions would permit such bigotry against them. For the vast majority of opponents to same-sex marriage, their opposition is not rooted in hate, but in their religious beliefs. The insistence of these activists to literally re-define marriage is what makes this most distasteful. In future parts, I'll also deal with the fact that they are not honest in their arguments; they cannot be, or they will have to cede what they feel are their strongest points. Finally, I have an opinion (bet you didn't see that coming, huh?) of how I believe government can both respect religion and get the vast majority of what the “gay marriage” activists want; that will be part 3.
Imagine, if you will, that our founding fathers were Jews rather than Christians and Deists. They set up our government to honor Passover above any and all other days, requiring that employers give Jewish employees time off from sundown to sundown on Passover, provided they attend the special services at the temple. This worked well for over 200 years, as some people got a day off each year, and other's didn't. It didn't occur to them to mind; this is just the way it's always been. There's a program out there for which they don't qualify, but it didn't bother them, the same way that it didn't bother them that they weren't eligible for food stamps because their income was too high.
Then, one day, the Protestant population started wondering why they didn't have this same protection - “Why can't I demand a free day off a year, just because I don't hold to that ancient, antiquated religion?” They go to the government and say “Hey, this doesn't seem fair - why can't we get a free day off each year?” The government says, “Well, what do you have in mind?” The people reply “Passover should be for all! We want a Protestant Passover, except without that temple requirement; we just want a free day off like them!” The government promptly laughs them out of its offices.
These Protestants aren't done yet, though. Prestigious universities have been teaching Protestantism as an equally valid alternative to Judaism for many years, and now these university-educated people are educating an increasing number of the nation's children. They decide to lay the groundwork by starting to normalize Protestantism. They find some inspiring stories about Protestants throughout history; they speculate that others may have been &“closet” Protestants, even though they never really said for sure. Finally, they follow this up with people who were “unfairly” treated simply because they were Protestant. If it's one thing kids understand, it's "that's not FAIR!", and this plan has wildly-successful results. The reasons given tend to evolve as well; in the beginning, it's fear; a few years later, it's bigotry; a few years after that, it's just hate.
Finally, this so-called Protestant Passover movement really starts to have some legs. Politicians are asked their view of this, even when the nation is facing far more pressing issues. The Jews are livid about the government defining a “Protestant Passover” that confers all the rights of the free-day-off Passover, but is celebrated by people who have no clue what it is they're celebrating, and without the worship requirement (which was the original reason behind the law in the first place). They would base their complaints on the free exercise of religion, and they would be told to stop hating.
You see where I'm going with this. There is absolutely no way our fictional government would even consider something so ludicrous as Protestant Passover; but, with two generations of conditioning by partial parties, now it doesn't seem ludicrous. I believe this is the point we have reached in our nation today; those who are for “gay marriage” cannot fathom any motivation other than hate in their opposition, no matter how little sense this makes. (“But wait,” you say, “wouldn't the original Passover law constitute an establishment of religion?” One could make that argument; come back for part 3, my friend.)
The word “marriage” means something to the Christian faith. Through the several Scriptures that follow, we survey some of the verses that establish marriage as having special significance; this is my proof that the “gay marriage” push is offensive to Christianity. We'll start with two verses that are central to this argument.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
These two verses establish the sufficiency and completeness of Scripture. Either it's all true, or none of it is; I hold to the former view. What was written was written, and the omission of what was not written is also significant. We also see that the purpose of Scripture is to equip man through teaching (education), reproof (some versions translate this “rebuke”), correction (a change of course), and training (“here is how you do it”). This means that, although Jesus has come and fulfilled the law, reading the law still has value; it gives us insight into how God thinks. Studying how God dealt with people and nations can show us His patience, mercy, and judgment all at the same time.
I think that this is where many of the Christians who identify themselves on the “pro” side of this argument go astray. They focus on one verse or passage, to the exclusion of all others. They may give special emphasis to the words of Jesus - most Bibles do, by putting His words in red! However, these verses tell us that all Scriptures is profitable. If Jesus said something, Paul echoed it, and Peter explained it, Peter's explanation is not “one of many interpretations” of Jesus' words; it is the explanation that God has preserved in His Word!
With that being said, let's take a look first at some pro-marriage verses. From the very beginning, God created male and female (yes, “Adam and Eve” not “Adam and Steve”), and near the end of Genesis 2, we read
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
(Am I the only one noticing that not only are they supposed to be husband and wife, but they're supposed to keep the fire burning? Ever read the book Song of Solomon? Yowza!)
Now, sure, those are both Old Testament. But, when Jesus quotes these words (and not in the “It has been said...but I say” way)…
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?...”
...well, that would seem to make them doubly-important in my book. Paul, who was one of the last people to see Jesus, found himself in the position of educating new believers who came from a background of hedonism. We'll deal with the "don't"s here in a bit, but let's look at how he summarizes his instructions on roles in marriage.
However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Husband with masculine pronoun, wife with a feminine pronoun - it's almost like there's a secret message there. No, I kid; it's no secret at all. Keep in mind this was written in Greek, when the Greek culture had just recently begun to fade. There was certainly plenty of homosexuality and pederasty in Greece; if there had been something positive to say about either of these things, Paul had the perfect opportunity. However, he had a different take.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Could that last part be talking about venereal disease or AIDS? Probably shouldn't go there; this is already long enough as it is.)
Paul is not a lone wolf on this; the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the prohibitions in the Levitical law on not only homosexuality, but also bestiality, incest, and adultery are consistent with this. Incidentally, these laws are given as a group, lending a certain “they're all the same sin” feel to that list. Non-marital sexual activity was prohibited.
Marriage was the first institution established by God, followed closely by the family. The reason our government issues marriage licenses in the first place is a carry-over from the Church of England (more on that in part 3). It is significant in the Christian faith. The fact that it has been abused and devalued by Christians and non-Christians alike does not change that. In fact, let's go ahead and get that red herring out of the way here. Remember above, where Jesus quoted the Old Testament? Let's pull that passage over here in with a bit more context.
And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”
He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so….”
Here, Jesus not only recognizes the institution of marriage, He reinforces it, tearing down an “out” that Moses had permitted, and had been a part of their law ever since. Now, I personally believe that it's a good thing that divorcees aren't shunned; Jesus doesn't indicate that divorce is better or worse than any other sin, but He does call it out as sin. If sin is forgiven and forsaken, my reading of Scripture tells me that's good enough for God, and if it's good enough for Him, it's good enough for me. However, the modern church has swung too far away from shunning to the point that divorce is common and accepted; it makes the argument for the sanctity of marriage weaker, especially in the eyes of the non-believing world. However, it does nothing to dilute the words of Jesus here.
Marriage is significant to the Christian faith. I believe I've demonstrated above that “gay marriage” is an oxymoron; how do you have “prohibited-activity sacred-institution”? Just as Muslims would fight a move to classify pulled pork as a halal dish, or Catholics would not want to receive a Big Mac as the Eucharist, Christians who oppose “;gay marriage” are simply defending their faith. Redefining a word that currently denotes the first institution ordained by God should be met with strong resistance by all Christians. Maybe this assault is what we need to recognize how far we've drifted from what the Word says should be the way. Forget about the sins of the past; we should determine what God says, then stand for it.
(This is part 1 of a 3-part series. The other parts will be linked here as they are published. The other parts will remain in my head.)
Friday, December 19, 2008
Daniel J. Summers
Via Cassy Fiano, we get a transcript and a link to video of an interview of Rick Warren by Ann Curry. As you probably know, Rick is the pastor of Saddleback Church in California and the author of the Purpose-Driven Life books. He has also been selected to deliver the invocation at the upcoming inauguration, which really has the gay community's collective panties in a wad. Me, I think it's funny seeing these special interest groups get their first twinges of buyer's remorse.
Anyway, enough babbling from me. Here's the transcript excerpt…
ANN CURRY: Your position [on gay marriage] has raised the specter that you are homophobic.
Warren responds with a hearty laugh.
CURRY: You laugh, but that is why gay people are angry.
RICK WARREN: Well, I could give you a hundred -
CURRY: Are you homophobic?
WARREN: I don't know any church in America that's done more to help the gay community, particularly with AIDS, than Saddleback. But the hate speech against me is incendiary.
CURRY: If science finds that this is biological, that people are born gay, would you change your position?
WARREN: No, and the reason why is because we all have biological predispositions. I'm naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
I think this is just awesome. It's succinct, it's personal, and it illustrates that his views on sexual relations are, in fact, not bigoted in the least.
This past weekend during Sunday School, we briefly discussed the raid of the polygamist compound in Texas. During this discussion, one very good point was raised - those handling this situation need wisdom. Previously decided cases hold a lot of weight in the judicial realm, and while, by all accounts, what was going on at that ranch was illegal and immoral, they are claiming it is part of their religion. It is good that those people have been stopped - however, what is to stop the government from deciding that something most mainstream churches do is illegal?
That led the discussion to this story about a photographer in Albuquerque, New Mexico who refused to photograph a “commitment ceremony” between two people of the same gender. There are lots of ironies in this story, and I would expect that this decision would be quickly vacated / overturned / made null. Can you really legally force someone to photograph an event that's illegal by nature? However, if it stands, there are much more troubling questions, some of which we have already seen. In California, a Catholic-run hospital was sued for refusing to perform gender reassignment surgery, and the state has sued the US government over a provision that strips Federal funds from states that force medical practitioners to perform or refer abortions.
During the course of the discussion, I took the (somewhat unpopular) opinion that a business should have the right to refuse service to whomever the business owner wanted. (I also did that a bit strongly at one point - if you're reading this, sorry about that.) Someone asked “What if they say they're not going to serve Jews?” My reply was that, if that was their stance, the word would get out, and those who found that abhorrent would also not patronize them, and they would go out of business. (And yes, I think I did actually use the word “abhorrent” in class… heh…) In further discussions with other people, including my wife, my position continued to be unpopular. I heard things like “What about people in the South not serving blacks?” and “I just think discrimination is wrong.”
I still cannot see the government requiring a private business to serve, sell, or perform any good, service, or person that the owner does not want. Why should I invest my money and time in an enterprise if the government is going to come and mandate to me how I do it? However, by the same token, I also feel that racial discrimination is bad. However, for anyone to say, unqualified, that “discrimination” is wrong simply doesn't realize how much discrimination occurs on a day-to-day basis.
Let's imagine I'm a photographer. I don't like trying to get kids posed for a picture, so I create a policy of no more than one child per pose. That's discrimination - I am discriminating against large families (though not completely - they're just not going to get an entire family portrait from me). Maybe I don't want to photograph some people because I feel they're unattractive - do “Uglo-Americans” have a right to have me photograph them? Maybe I'm a really popular photographer, and I can't be in two places at once. I'll have to be discriminating in how I set up my schedule. There simply isn't a scenario that convinces me that the government has an overriding interest in forcing me to photograph someone I don't want to. The “right to photography” is nowhere in the Constitution.
Now - let's put the brakes on that and look at the government. While I believe that a business owner has the right to discriminate pretty much however he or she feels like, I also just as strongly believe that the government should not be in the discrimination business. Equal protection under the law should be just that - equal. Firefighters should (and do) respond just as quickly to fires in desirable neighborhoods as they do to fires in undesirable neighborhoods. Everyone should (and does) have access to their legislators, and the right to vote for the ones they think will best represent them. Everyone should have access to government-run educational facilities, with the same requirements for everyone. (OK, we need to work on that last one…) The bottom line is, government should not discriminate on anything other than merit and scarcity (i.e., we can't give everyone $1k if we don't have it).
But, in reality, this isn't the way it is; I alluded to it above regarding education. When the government starts trying to play identity games, “level the playing field,” or any other sort of tinkering, they invariably get it wrong. According to the NM government, this photographer “violated human rights” by refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. Would the pastors of my church be guilty of the same if they refused to officiate one? In finding this photographer guilty of discrimination, the state is, in effect, discriminating against her free exercise of religion. (See? Every choice is discrimination!) This is the danger of giving the government the power to decide what's “good” discrimination versus what's “bad” discrimination.
The solution? From my view, I believe that there are very powerful forces at work in the economic marketplace. Eliminating “Jim Crow” laws was a good thing - they were a violation of the equal protection clause. Forcing state-run universities to integrate was a good thing - again, equal access to government resources. Forcing businesses to cater to those to whom they do not wish to cater? That's bad. Sure, I believe that businesses shouldn't discriminate based on race - but is it the government's place to tell them they can't? Some people think that discrimination based on gender is wrong; in fact, a few years back, there was a big kerfuffle over Augusta National not allowing women to become members. How many of those people would advocate my joining Curves? It's all perspective, and because one person's perspective may be different than another's, the government should stay out of it.
To me, this is a heart thing. Sure, you can pass a law and make people comply, but all you've done is made people upset by forcing them to do something that they didn't want to do. I believe in giving people enough rope so that they can hang themselves (figuratively speaking, of course) - if someone wants to open a racially-discriminatory business, that's their own stupidity in eliminating a big chunk of their potential customer base. If someone wants to open the “No Purple Pants Club” and refuse to admit anyone wearing purple pants - well, it's their money and time they're pouring into the business. And, if someone wants to refuse to provide their goods and services to those they find morally reprehensible, more power to 'em.
In each of these cases, one of two things will happen. One, they may flourish as a business, which will prove there was a market for their goods and services, even without the people they excluded. Two, they will fail, and learn via the “school of hard knocks” that they shouldn't restrict their pool of potential customers. Either way, the business owner gets out of his business exactly what he put into it, and I really don't have a problem with that.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Daniel J. Summers
I am just sick up to the top of my neck with prime time programming's incessant infatuation with homosexuality. The latest egregious display was at the end of last night's Law and Order, where Serena, the Assistant D. A. played by Elizabeth Rohm, was fired. Throughout the four years she's been on the show, we've really seen nothing of her family. After being told to pack her things, she replies, “Is this because I'm a lesbian?” Now granted, the writers hadn't developed her character out enough for anyone to know whether this was true or not, but why bring it into the last episode? It wasn't even a very good scene - it seemed unnatural for Ms. Rohm (and I have no idea if she actually is gay or not - doesn't really matter to me).
Now, in re-runs, it won't be consuming me - I really have no obsession over knowing someone's (or even a fictional character's) sexual proclivities. But, the principle of it left me with a bad taste in my mouth, and this “ambush homosexuality” will tint my view of her character when I see re-runs on A&E or TNT. (I'm also a little disappointed that Fred Thompson was part of that scene, but that's just something I'll have to get over, I suppose…) I watch ER too, and they have a required gay character - but at least they've developed the character; and, whether I agree with the statements the character made or not, it wasn't something just thrown up in the audience's face at the last minute.
I sure hope that future “farewells” for folks have a bit more substance, and less statement-making…
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Daniel J. Summers
And so little time to say it!
John Kerry - I can't believe that we have an anti-war activist running for President who is actually being taken seriously. I also can't believe that the self-same anti-war activist is running for President on his war record. I guess now that the military is back in vogue, the Democrats like it.
Gov. Jim McGreevey - At least he has more respect for the state of New Jersey that Bill Clinton had for the nation. Although it's now coming out (no pun intended) that the cause is corruption more than his penchant for those of like gender, his stepping down is the right decision. (He is muddying the issue with his “I am a gay American” schtick - that link has a very interesting take on that part of the situation.) I think he should step down immediately, though, rather than his political ploy of not stepping down until after the election.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - Keep on keepin' on. McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional, and will be ruled as such by the time the next election rolls around. It's amazing that no one was upset when these 527 groups accused President Bush of poisoning pregnant women (a charge that is repeated on the Democrats' own web site [scroll to the bottom]), but let them use facts to challenge something a Senator says, and now they need to shut up. (Still no call for moveon.org to stop their ads…)
President Bush vs. Catwoman - Sharon Stone recently said that because of President Bush, there wasn't a lesbian kiss between she and Halle Berry in the movie Catwoman. I'm not quite sure I buy that - why would arch-enemies be kissing in the first place? And, if our President could control Hollywood, wouldn't he be using that control to silence the hateful drivel from Michael Moore and his ilk? Sharon Stone has had plenty of opportunities to play oversexed bisexual characters (in fact, wasn't that her first big role, in Basic Instinct?).
Thomas Sowell had two great columns this week, addressing what he calls the “grand fallacy” of our times. In Part 1, he exposes the fallacy of the belief that “equal opportunity = equal results.” And, in Part 2, he shows the danger of how preconceptions plus statistics equals “proof,” and puts the burden of proof off on the accused, instead of the accuser. As always, an excellent read.
Just one parting note - our next-door neighbors and great friends for over three years are moving on to California. Have a safe trip, guys!
Much has been made over the decision this week by the Episcopalian church's approval of its first openly gay bishop. A lot of the discussion I've seen on this has centered on how this may split the church. I don't see that, and here's why. The Bible is very clear about the qualifications of a minister (check out the books of 1st and 2nd Timothy if you've never read those.) The time that this became a big deal, in my opinion, was when this man was first approved as a deacon or priest. Should those who have responsibility of a congregation be held to any less of a standard that someone who has responsibility over those who lead congregations?
The Episcopal church, as an entity, has made its decision. Of course, as with many denominations, there are good folks who know what is right, and disagree with the leadership when they go astray. The biggest problem with this decision is that it sends the signal that certain precepts, in the Bible in black and white, can be discarded if they do not fit the way one feels. This bishop doesn't feel that the prohibition of homosexuality found in Leviticus and Romans really apply to us today. This is a very dangerous example, especially when it's being set by one that is recognized as a leader of a Protestant religion.
The Bible should serve as a guide, and a source that can tell us if our feelings are pulling us in the right direction. This exactly the thing that Paul talked about in Ephesians 4:22-23, when he says to put off the old nature, with its lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of our minds. If our feelings were a good guide for holy living, we wouldn't need the Holy Spirit to direct us. But, they aren't, and we do. I don't look down on the Episcopal church, either as a whole, or the people in it. I do pray that they will return to a more literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and that no one will take this action as a license to discard parts of the Bible they don't like.