Essays, Subornation, and YOU!

[caraig]

I thought I should pass this on, from the indefatiguable Infamous Brad Hicks. His latest essay, "Christians in the Hands of an Angry God" is quite interesting, being a discussion of religion and the Republican Party. Is it accurate? Is it true? Hard to say. There are a few logical quibbles I have with his theory.

Most of you know that I "go in for" conspiracy theories. It'd be more accurate to say that I believe that rich, powerful people tend to cooperate and work with each other, doing favors which are repayed in a sort of power-bartering. Maybe some of these sharing of favors is under a formal system of ritual and society. ("Ewige blumencraft!") It's more likely that they're established on the golf course and in the vacation homes and after the board meeting. And, of course, some conspiracies are just 'rational' human behavior and companies all doing the profitable thing (wether legal or illegal or quasi-legal.) What Brad describes is a bit more conspirational than I'm willing to grant, but depending on a lot of factors, it's possible.

How much influence can a teacher or a mentor (such as Leo Strauss) have on their students? How much influence can the dean of a school (in this case DTS) have on future graduates and current graduates? Is something like the Project for the New American Century, or the Council on Foreign Relations, a simple "thinktank," or the modern Bavarian Illuminati, or just a bunch of guys with a lot of money to throw around and an urge to seem important? Putting aside the stereotype of the corporate shark, wouldn't at least one person on the board or in the executive offices of a corporation look at what they're doing and say, "Hey, this isn't right...," or do they remain quiet because the whistleblower is fired posthaste?

All this really changes little in the way of personal development. When you come right down to it, self-honestly and self-actualization should not be affected by whatever forces run or not-run the government(s). The guidance of, "Free your mind, Fear nothing," are important no matter who's in charge. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that we have to live here, too, so a healthy dose of "Think globally, act locally," also helps. Plus a light sprinkling of Santayanna and Jefferson quotes for flavor.

Well, off to see National Treasure, now. I'll write up a review when I get back. Pax!

Comments

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'll bite -- exactly what is homosexuality, for you? ;)

[sodon.livejournal.com]

For me? Well what's the point in answering if it only applies to my own little fantasy world? =P

But I'll bite.

Homosexuality is not a genetic trait, nor is it necessarily a choice. It's also a harmful lifestyle to live, not just emotionally/psychologically, but also physically. I am thus against it, or more specifically, against the spreading of the lie that it is normal, completely safe, and just like anything else we do in our normal day to day lives.

And it gets more complicated from there. But that's it in a horrifyingly inadequate nutshell.

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Hm, from the strength of your opinion it would seem you speak from personal knowledge. I'd guess something like trying the lifestyle and finding it wanting, or doing considerable research on the subject. Which was it? I'd be interested in hearing what you learned in the process.

[sodon.livejournal.com]

Well, it was more along the lines of research, but personal experience has proved insightful in some ways as well, just not in a way you might not expect. I'm not in a position to write a treatise on it at the moment, but I might quote the two more interesting things about it that I found.

1. There is no such thing as safe gay sex. This is why AIDS and other diseases are so prominent among them. Like I said, I don't have my data with me, but the homosexual lifestyle is a risky one to live.

2. Also, something like 1% of homosexuals are monogamous. This does not bode well after learning #1, but it also goes back to the psychological problems I mentioned.

Obviously there are exceptions. Some homosexuals are monogamous, and some never get AIDS or anything, and maybe never will. But it is far from being the happy-go-lucky do-what-makes-you-happy being-gay-is-fun-and-normal lifestyle that the activists purport.

[collie13.livejournal.com]

I would be interested in your sources? The information you give is directly contradicted by much of the data I've read, and I'm always interested in learning more.

[sodon.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested in your sources too.

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Sure thing! Sorry to take so long to get back to you, but I had to do some digging. I've not yet found all my references, but I thought best to give you at least some of them -- I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

First, let me state a few personal beliefs up front: it's not been my experience that homosexuals are trying to present themselves or their lifestyle as "happy-go-lucky do-what-makes-you-happy being-gay-is-fun-and-normal." What I've seen is people trying hard to fit into US society as it now stands, and to be honest, I have great sympathy for their position. To me, human rights and dignity belong to humans, not just to the humans we like.

Also, I'd have to call into question any study which said there was absolutely no safe homosexual sex. If there isn't any, why aren't they all dead already, considering there've been homosexuals throughout human history? And if AIDS is really a homosexual disease, why did it come from monkeys originally, and why is it spreading most rapidly now via the vector of heterosexual sex?

Furthermore, I'd want to know more about a survey which declared homosexuals are almost entirely non-monogamous. That sounds suspiciously to me like advocate research, such as a "study" discovering smoking isn't harmful -- because the study was funded by a cigarette company.

So, as to sources. Regarding the question of whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural, there's the book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl. It's both a huge and wonderfully droll book which empirically demonstrates homosexual behavior is as natural (if not as common) as heterosexual, in the animal kingdom.

Regarding Biblical injunctions on homosexuality, I recommend the scholarly book The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate by Robin Scroggs. He's quite objective, and takes the time to answer the critical question of what the original authors actually meant in their writings.

Anthropologically speaking, there's the response of the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, the world's largest organization of anthropologists, the people who study culture, given in response to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a threat to civilization.

Finally, you might be interested in the following, which are speculations of my own written on the subject of same-sex marriage, but which can also be applied to the issue of homosexuals in society: Why Not Same-sex Marriage? and Tolerance FAQ, take 2. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Enjoy! ;)

[sodon.livejournal.com]

Interesting...not what I thought you had in mind when you said it went against your sources. But here's what I think, given what you said about them. If I misinterpret what they were trying to say, feel free to correct me.

For one thing, there are a lot of things that are natural in the animal kingdom that are not natural or good in human society (eating your babies/mates, abandoning sick/injured, biting my feet when I'm trying to do homework...well, maybe that's just my cat). I've heard that claim before, but I'm afraid to say it's not really relevant. We're not mindless animals =/

Biblically speaking, I don't base my ideas that homosexuality is a bad idea on the fact that it's supposedly listed as one of the damning sins. I don't think homosexuality automatically reserves you a spot in hell, nor do I believe the Bible says so. I'm more apt to quote Paul, who said, "Everything is permissable, but I will be a slave to nothing...everything is permissable, but not everything is beneficial." If anything is applicable to homosexuality, and sexual immorality in general, it is that first statement. But the second one fits as well. That's why I take my stance the way I do. I do not think God would condone destructive behavior. Ergo, if I find that homosexuality is destructive, it must be wrong. That is where my interest really lies here, not in keeping homosexuals oppressed because, well, they're weird and I don't like them.

Anthropologically speaking, I would argue that Bush's call for a constitutional amendment is an attempt to preserve the very foundation of this nation and its democratic ideals, when the majority of Americans are opposed to the idea of gay marriage but find it thrust upon them by activist judges. Right or wrong, that is not how our country ought to work, and it is very scary when you think about it. Also, I think people point in many cases to Rome and other nations where, historically, the acceptance of homosexuality correlated to its downfall. I would note that connecting the two is just about as conjecture as connecting genes exclusively (e.g. its only cause) to homosexuality.

As for the happy-go-lucky thing, no, most homosexuals don't walk in gay pride parades that I know of, but the very loud activists who do are the ones most people get an impression of, and they're wrong.

I must also assert, perhaps in vain, that if I am right, if homosexuality is really harmful, that I am not being intolerant or discriminatory or anything of the sort. More accurately, I am being responsible and sympathetic. No, you didn't call me intolerant, but I get that for my views very often, and I ought to state that right off. My claim is not that homosexuality is just nasty and fags are going to hell. My claim is that homosexuality is a harmful lifestyle and that it should be addressed, not accepted.

Having said all that...unfortunately, my primary source material was leant out to a friend. I'll be seeing him over Christmas, so I could grab it then and tell you where exactly I got these numbers and ideas from. In the meantime, I'll see if I can't poke around more, though between finals and World of Warcra- I mean...finals...I'm not sure what I can come up with. =P Believe me, I want to find out more on this issue, but unfortunately, much of that is not at hand at the moment. The Internet, though the widest source of information available, is also the widest source of garbage available =/

Either way, you have my thoughts, and I will get back to you with my sources sooner or later. I hope.

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Solon, please pardon my long silence -- I've been off-line due to hardware issues for the past handful of days. Bloody annoying, too. ;-p

Rest assured I'm not ignoring you and I do very much want to hear more of your thoughts and sources. Cheers!

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Okay, time for a bit more thought on my part, and comments on your comments! Hope you're enjoying this as much as I am. ;)

So, concerning Paul's quote -- I'm not sure I agree with how you use it. You also seem to be juxtaposing several non-congruent ideas with it, at least to my way of seeing. For example, being a slave to nothing should surely include guys who get off on sleeping with as many women as possible, yet I don't hear any calls for constitutional amendments against promiscuity. On the same note, I'd have to say an epidemic of pregnant but abandoned women who can't afford to support their children (caused by the above-mentioned promiscuous men) would be far more damaging to "the very foundation of this nation and its democratic ideals" than responsible, loving families who pay their taxes and raise their children to obey the law and be good Americans.

It also appears you're conflating homosexuality and sexual immorality. Why so, please? From the Bible it would appear Jesus considered divorce far more immoral than homosexuality, since he mentions divorce several times as wrong, but never speaks at all about homosexuality. Or if you're looking at homosexuality as immoral in a more modern setting, could I ask you how you find responsible homosexual behavior any more damaging than responsible heterosexual behavior? I'm specifically not speaking of irresponsible behavior, since that's damaging no matter what number or gender the participants are, of course. ;)

Anthropologically speaking, I'd like to point you to the following two articles I've written. They were quite enjoyable to research, and I hope you find them interesting: Why not same-sex marriage? and Tolerance FAQ, take II. I'd also be interested in any feedback you might have on them, especially since they specifically address several of the points you make.

Regarding loud activists, I'd have to say the public face of Christianity today is certainly fundamentalist, and I have little to no respect for that particular mindset. However, I don't feel their lifestyle should be outlawed, any more than a responsible gay lifestyle should be. Indeed, I consider a mutually respectful gay marriage far more laudable than a fundamentalist Christian marriage where the man beats his wife and abuses his kids because the Bible says he should.

Or, to put it slightly differently, you may think a loud gay activist is wrong, and I may think a loud fundamentalist activist is wrong, but I don't think either of us have the right to tell them they can't live the way they want -- until they start hurting others without permission. Also, it's just a suspicion on my part, but I bet the fundamentalist will do that long before the gay does. YMMV, of course.

Regarding: if homosexuality is truly harmful then it's not intolerant to wish it stopped -- yup, I've got to agree with you there. To take a radically different practice as an example, pederasty is something I wish stopped (and I'd guess you would too) because as far as I know it's bad for the kids who are involved in such an unbalanced power/sexual dynamic. That's why, in fact, I'm so very interested in your sources which say homosexuality is truly harmful. I'm quite curious as to whether they're referring to ALL homosexual behavior, or just to irresponsible or deliberately cruel behavior.

I look forward to hearing more from you if you get some time. Good luck with finals! ;)

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Actually, let me check one other thing too -- Jonathan, is it all right with you that we're cheerfully burbling on about this all over your LJ? ;)

[caraig.livejournal.com]

Oh, please, feel free. ^^ One advantage is that whenever either of you post replies is that I get an e-mail telling me about it, so I can follow the discussion. d(^^)b

[sodon.livejournal.com]

To your note about their not being a call for a constitutional ban on promiscuity, I can only say that I am not the government. If I had my way, I would certainly call for a ban on promiscuity. I'd also ban divorce, sex outside of marriage...etc. Which is an interesting point, however, because I certainly have no right to impose those beliefs on the nation when most of the nation would probably not want such a ban in place over them. And that is one problem with the issue right now, and one reason why Bush is calling for the ban. Last I checked, the majority of Americans are against legalizing gay marriage (not civil unions), but the liberal activist judges of our nation are trying to impose just such a thing on them. You may argue that they should because it's right, but I would argue it's not right, and that is the point of our government. It's what most of the people decide should be done, not what judges and/or the president decide.

But I digress. We were discussing personal opinions, weren't we?

As far as Jesus' comments are concerned, I think that is a poor way to make judgements: how often did Jesus mention it? To my knowledge, he never mentions rape either, or pedofility for that matter. Are we to assume that those are not immoral? Or less immoral? And what does less immoral entail anyway? Easier for God to forgive? =P Perhaps the reason that Jesus mentioned divorce more was because he was never preaching to a homosexual crowd, and that divorce was a much bigger problem than homosexuality (which comprises roughly 3% of the population, and now that I am back home, I shall find the study which shows that too). Of course, that is purely conjecture, though if you could find those passages where Jesus speaks against divorce, I'd like to see them (just because they slip my mind at the moment).

And I suppose nobody loves activists. The problem is with how gay activists have changed the thinking of people and changed the official stance on homosexuality. I know this sounds far fetched, but again, I am home, so I will come up with the actual facts behind this soon. My point is, I don't like Christian fundamentalists either, and I would preach against them just as much as I would against people who BELIEVED them, and vice versa with homosexuality.

As for the rest, I'll just have to tell you to wait for me to get my sources. Perhaps the nature of this discussion might change a little if I can accurately represent the cold hard facts of this issue, rather than ideological blabbering.

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Cool! I love a good, thoughtful discussion. I'll wait, and we can pick up again once you have your data to hand. ;)

[sodon.livejournal.com]

I just remembered. Digging out my data again would prove somewhat repetitive, since I have already presented them in an old debate at my website's message board. The thread itself can be found here:

http://www.glorysblaze.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?s=27f6519a9d0e4fa1ace2ba8fbee24078;act=ST;f=8;t=3

You can read the whole thing if you want, but much of it is idealistic drivel you've undoutedly heard before. Just search for all my posts and you should be fine; no one else on either side presented any facts that you or I haven't brought up already, to my knowledge. Though they may be more ideals than facts. But I digress.

I skimmed my opponent's posts again, and read mine, and I think I am satisfied with what I say, as far as it pertains to this discussion. Also, though this has nothing to do with you personally, I find it interesting to note that not a single person responded to the facts I presented. Rather, they attacked my person or just ignored me altogether. I have to be honest. If you cannot respond to the facts in that thread that I present, then I truly have no desire to continue this discussion with you. I am not trying to be offensive or superioristic; I am simply uninterested in discussing this topic with ideals that ignore the facts.

At the very least, hopefully you find the data I presented in that thread interesting, and hopefully, thought-provoking.