A Second Rerun - With Comments

I originally wrote and ran this particular piece in April of '07. Strapped for ideas back in March, I ran it again. When I re-ran it four months ago, I got zero response. My hope is to get a good discussion going here, despite the fact that some of the references to what were then current events are now dated. I believe my larger, "meta", point is still valid in the context in which it was presented.


I would also like to make a couple observations. First, as I noted in the comments a year and a half ago, I chose this particular photo because it was a perfect representation of St. Augustine's view of sin as "concupiscence". The apple sitting on the woman's lap - need I say more? NPT just couldn't see past the image, and actually argued there was something pornographic about the picture, something I still fail to understand. Second, the last two comments I didn't discover for several months, as I rarely revisit a piece once it has dropped off the bottom of the page. Yet both those comments mean more to me than you might think. That a person just happened along and found something positive in something I wrote - that's what this is all about, folks. Not to disparage my regular commenters and readers at all, but those two one-time comments really made me sit up and realize that the things I say here on this little blog reach farther than I can imagine. It's a pretty humbling experience, to be honest.

I think, of all the over one thousand posts I have written, this is by far my favorite, despite what I think are some serious flaws, especially its limitations by referring to current events at the time, rather than dealing with a broader brush. Anyway, here it is, "Women, Women's Sexuality, And The Right"



I've been thinking about this post and the accompanying photo in the context in which it all came about - French fascist Jean Marie Le Pen's comments on how women should avoid unwanted pregnancy - and the larger issue of sexuality, especially women's sexuality, and the social reaction to it. I had been thinking about how to say more, from a Christian perspective (or at least my Christian perspective) on this question, but I wanted more than just my opinion to be out there. I started one yesterday, then gave up. Then, late last night, I came across this piece by Jane Hamsher at FDL on Rudy Giuliani, and lo! and behold! it began by summing up much of what I wanted to say by way of background, and I quote (although it would be rewarding to read the whole thing):

I know I'm late to this particular party, but I have to disagree with just about everyone who thinks Rudy really stepped in it with his abortion comments last week and believes he has now alienated the mouth breather vote. It may have been an artless move, but I think it actually won't cost him a thing — in fact, it liberates him from an image of slavish devotion to wingnuttery that will help him in the long run, and I seriously doubt that that the lizard brains are going to abandon him.

There is a central misconception at play wherein people believe that because the social conservatives make so much noise about abortion, it's something they actually care about. It isn't. It's an abstraction. If you think they really give a happy hootie about innocent fetuses, you're living in a fool's paradise. George Bush could say the war on terror will be won tomorrow by stringing up Islamofascist blastulae and torturing them at Guantanamo Bay and nobody would make a peep. Not a one. Being anti-abortion is an article of faith, a calling card, a way of saying you are a member of the tribe. It's Michelle Malkin showing up in a white hood to the Klan meeting. The "unborn child" is what they profess to care about because what they really care about are self-determined urban women with lives of their own who take their jobs away and have sex and don't bake quite enough pies, and they hate 'em. But that's not okay to say so we get yet another chorus of "Every Sperm is Sacred."(emphasis added)

It is my belief that the Supreme Court's decision in Roe V. Wade, legalizing abortion on demand, was the last straw for many on the Christian Right. For a decade since the introduction of the birth control pill, the prospect of women being able to have a fulfilling sex life without fear of unwanted pregnancy posed a mortal threat to male dominance of society. For centuries, sexual freedom was a male prerogative. Women were the objects of male sexuality, quite often nameless, faceless, non-persons who were walking masturbation aids. With the advent first of the pill, then of abortion, which took care of those missed by the pill, women were now emancipated from the fear of issue and could exercise their sexual desire and power with a freedom previously only reserved for men.

I do not wish to downplay the economic dimension, either. With both conception control and abortion available as live options, women were now free to pursue careers outside the home with a freedom even their mothers had not had. As legislation and case law increasingly defined the limits of discrimination against the employment of women, and as women were no longer bound by either tradition or biology to limit their options, it increased competition in the workplace. Indeed, in many ways, the pool of available workers suddenly doubled, as both men and women became potentially equal partners in the job market (I say "potentially" because it hasn't happened, and we are years away from the playing field being even). Combined with the more elemental threat of a more free sexuality available to women, the reaction of the right, especially the Christian right, should have been obvious.

A generation later, however, we have yet to grasp the almost elemental fear and hatred of women among many on the right. I do not mean hatred of individual persons who happen to be women; I am talking about the fear engendered by free, powerful, sexually and (relatively) economically liberated women upon men. As long as women fulfill roles defined for them, there is nothing to fear. Once women start to press the limits of "acceptable" behavior, however, one can almost hear the howls of rage. Consider, for a moment, the disdain for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the past two weeks, there has been an onslaught against her for a trip to Syria, part of which included bringing along a message from the Israeli government to reassure Bashar al Assad that Israel had no plans for a spring or summer offensive against them (the Israeli government claimed afterward that no such message was given, even though the Israeli press had been discussing it prior to Pelois's visit; this is a separate matter deserving a much fuller treatment elsewhere). For our purposes here, it is just enough to consider the almost universal screech, not just from members of the Administration and Congressional Republicans, but from members of the mainstream press who should be aware that the trip was (a) bi-partisan, and (b) unremarkable because members of Congress routinely do exactly what Speaker Pelosi has done, not the least of them being Newt Gingrich. Yet, as Glenn Greenwald has carefully and thoroughly demonstrated, the attacks upon Pelosi began before she even took office as Speaker of the House and have continued in the same manner for the past five months.

Nancy Pelosi is a woman who has attained the Number 3 position, essentially, in our Constitutional order (she is second in line for the Presidency after the Vice President). The threat she poses, I contend, is not just political, but sexual. She is a successful, powerful, appealing, and attractive woman - a horrible combination for men already threatened in their masculinity by female freedom in general. Is it any wonder that many on the right feel about her as frequent visitor and commentator Neon Prime Time expressed in a comment several months ago, viz., "She scares me"? What is frightening can be summed up in Simone de Beauvois's famous dictum, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Here is a woman who does not need a man to be free, powerful, a leader. She doesn't know her place. That she is physically appealing as well as politically appealing only makes the threat that much more horrendous.

Faced with the power that women have over men, a power men have had to control through de-humanization, social and economic control, sexual exploitation and physical violence, and the rhetoric of innate sexual difference, many men end up, in the end, a quivering puddle on the floor, terrified that a strong woman will discover and make public what has been heretofore a secret even to these men themselves (except perhaps in their darkest thoughts they dare not express) - these men just don't cut it. A sexually, socially, economically liberated woman is a threat on many levels. It is my contention, however, that the most elemental threat is the sexual element. There are various social and economic controls that still exist to limit the social and economic power of women. A woman who is sexually free, however, threatens men's view of themselves at its most basic level.

You might be wondering about the whole "Christian" element I spoke of above. It is my contention that all that I have written has been written from a perspective that views women as equal creatures before God, created with power and vulnerability, part of which is sexual. Unless we want to deny that sex is a good gift from a good God (as my other told me, "If God made anything better than sex, He kept it to Himself"; there is no better theology of sex that I know of!) we have to start thinking in more creative ways about human sexuality. We should begin by recognizing, as a social fact, the threat posed to men's well-being by strong, independent women. We need to recognize that threat as existing on multiple levels, and deal with it on multiple levels. We need a positive view of human sexuality, one not linked to outmoded social roles and easily avoidable biological consequences, and teach both boys and girls, men and women, about the power they have, and how it should be used creatively and positively; and about the dangers it poses destructively and negatively.

For further reading, I suggest you go here to Alternet.org. I think the headline says it all.

Note: The photo is entitled "Forbidden Fruit" by Alexander Feodorov.

Parklife said...

Well done.
I think you can go farther though. I get this masculine v. fem. feeling out there, with Republicans occupying the former. Its not just about how Pelosi is treated. Its about how all dems. are treated. Coulter is off writing "How to Talk to a Liberal". Meanwhile, conservatives feel the need to punish people for their sins. Rather than finding a long lasting solution to the problem.

Republicans have the need to talk down to us. Its the only why to "make us understand." And how perfect is it that she goes to Syria to open talks with the country, while the Admins. sit in judgment.

PS.. The word police might be after you for that photo.
5:21 PM
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I thought the photo was perfect! I have said all I wish to say to the "word police". If they have a problem with naked boobies, that is most definitely their problem, not mine.
I agree with your larger point, viz., that much of Republican rhetoric involves the "feminization" of the Democrats (i.e., applying traditional, largely negative, feminine stereotypes to Democrats), and I also agree it is part of the larger phenomenon I am writing about here. Again, it's all about men being more powerful than women. As long as this post is, one can only say so much before one loses people's attention.
5:27 PM
neonprimetime said...

The word police simply says that I think you can get your point across without such items. I don't think you're accomplishing anything by trying to be a blogger shock jock (for lack of a better term).
9:32 PM
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Oh, please, Neon. Really. If you are shocked by that photo, then the problem is most definitely yours. It is the perfect visual illustration of my point. And your reaction is, as well, a good illustration of my point. Me, I believe God made us beautiful and there is nothing wrong in tasteful displays of that beauty. You, all you see is a naked woman, and the composition just offends you. Or does it frighten you, like Speaker Pelosi?
8:04 AM
Parklife said...

I just love it when people are offended by nudity... NPT, there is a big difference between your photo and Geoffrey's photo.

Further over/hyper-masculinization (is that a word?) might be found in fright-wingers like Imus and his comments. And, thinking about those Fighting Pseudo Pigeon Bird People, they felt the need to attack a demonstration. Not to mention those Fighting 101 Keyboarders calling the British sailors cowards. It all smells really bad. Oh.. and Bush saying the only way to have peace is through war.
10:41 AM
neonprimetime said...

>> If you are shocked by that photo, then the problem is most definitely yours.

I knew I was missing something. More pron as a kid!

Do you not feel sorry for this girl, or if not her, then her family? I'd be hard pressed to think that her family approves of such exploitations. That's the whole concept behind rape is that you're taking away someone's innocence. I fully believe that something as simple as a picture can rape a woman of her innocence. I would never promote such an act, whether she did it willingly or not, because it affects more than just her.

I assume that your wife reads your posts? What's her take? Not on the article itself, but does she think it was necessary to duplicate the picture on your blog and basically continue the promotion of such images?
4:13 PM
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

A) To view this particular photo as porn reveals a certain, um, prudishness (to be kind) toward the exhibition of the human body. This is most definitely not "pron" (I'm assuming that's a typo), but most definitely an artistic rendering of Augustine's idea of original sin as concupiscence. It also demonstrates visually one of the ideas I was trying to convey, viz., that the power women have through their sexuality is threatening to many men. Your reaction, it seems to me, proves my point more than you might imagine.
No, I do not feel sorry for this model. How is she exploited? How is she demeaned? How is this lovely photograph, in which the woman is most definitely a subject rather than an object, on a par with the kind of vapid gyno-porn one finds out there in the world? My complaint about porn isn't that is the same as rape (that's psycho-Andrea Dworkin talk), but that it lacks imagination, human feeling. It reduces sex to the barest mechanical minimum, and yes it does exploit women, but it also exploits men as well.
Finally, my wife does view my blog, and she did express concerns over the photo. Once she read the piece, however, she understood what I was doing, and she only wanted to make sure I wasn't going to get in trouble for putting bare breasts on my blog. I laughed, and explained some facts of life to her. See, Neon, my wife is a grown-up, too.
12:51 PM
neonprimetime said...

And if your wife is ok, then is your girls? Your bio says you have 2 amazing girls ... do you hope that they grow up to be just like that model? And would it bother you if other websites were re-posting those pictures of them online? I think of it as hurting the people around this girl ... even if the girl herself doesn't think it's hurting her.

But if you don't see it as somebody else's little girl ... then I guess, nevermind.
7:04 PM
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

First of all, if my girls become models when they are adults I will be proud of whatever they accomplish. Will I be comfortable with the thought that, as adults, they might do things or make decisions that I wouldn't make? Well, that's part of being a parent - even now, as my older daughter approaches her tenth birthday, letting go is already beginning, in small ways that nevertheless seem huge to Lisa and me right now. We have a choice - we can smother them, or we can let them live. I would prefer they live.
Second, to ask whether I view the model in the photograph as someone's daughter implies that (a) I do not view her as a person, a subject in her own right, with all the specificity that entails; and that (b) by so objectifying her, I am doing some kind of metaphysical violence to her. First of all, of course she is someone's child. All of us are. That is neither here nor there. I know nothing about the model or the photographer; I selected this photograph because it illustrated my point beautifully and brilliantly. Should I learn that the model was underage, say, or the photographer is also a nefarious character, I might change my mind about using his work in the future. As long as there was neither violence nor illegality involved, I am not sure what there is to complain about here.
Finally, I think it is approaching inappropriate to use my daughters as points in an argument, an argument you seem to be having only with yourself. My blog is not for children, but for adults, adults interested in politics, in religion, in issues surrounding cultural and social struggle, conflict, and community. I have neither the time nor the inclination to worry too much about who might be offended by something I say or show here, because that would keep me from doing anything. I do what I do the best way I know hoe, and while I recognize I may make mistakes, as I have acknowledged in the past, all I can do is apologize for them, both retrospectively and prospectively, and carry on doing what I'm doing. This isn't about my wife, or my daughters, or even about the sensitivities of those who see a woman's naked form and get all woozy. This is about me blogging (see, this is my blog, so, yes, it is all about me here), and doing it the only way I know how, trying to make it interesting and lively and controversial and fun. If that connects with other people, I'm thrilled. It seems to have connected with one or two, and that is enough to keep me going, day after day.
Neon, you seem so focused on that photo, and I can't help wondering why. I am honestly befuddled as to how you can construe anything about that photograph as salacious, or demeaning, or even pornographic. Please enlighten this poor benighted liberal.
9:12 PM
neonprimetime said...

>> Finally, I think it is approaching inappropriate to use my daughters as points in an argument

If you're offended, I apologize. Just please don't take my job!

Anyways, I was simply trying to explain why I'm saying what I'm saying ... and I would back up my statements by talking about children ... therefore I wondered if you would too. That's all, no harm meant.
8:26 PM
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

take your job? I'm sitting down, so that one flew over my head.
No offense taken, I was just a bit surprised, that's all.
7:27 AM
neonprimetime said...

imus said something offensive and they took his job

i said something offensive ... i'll let you fill in the rest
8:23 PM
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Saying things for a living is your job? BTW, it wasn't offensive, I said it was "bordering on inappropriate", that is, trying to infer either personal hypocrisy or personal immorality on my part by invoking my status as a father of two girls as a measure of my attitudes towards nudity and art.
This may surprise you, Neon, but I was an art model for a few weeks my freshman year in college. Yes, I sat around nude for three hours (actually three fifty minute sessions, with ten minute breaks in a bathrobe). It paid really well ($10 an hour when minimum was $3.35). I stopped doing it because the studio at college was just too cold.
8:40 PM
The Flip Flop Girl said...

I"m sorry you had to go through that silly arguemnt with that ignorant prude! I love your essay and it helps me to see some really healthy and balanced expression from a Christian point of view. We are living in very strange times indeed. One must hope, and pray, that a Democrat is elected president in '08 to, at the very least, help clean up the current mess and abuse of power. My blog deals with sexuality and pop culture from, well, my point of view, a young woman. It has been interesting to me to read my responses, predominantly from men. Many do provide thoughtful and sensitive feedback which is reassuring. Then there are those who seem to see me more as a sex object than anything else, or exclusively as a sex object, and I feel sorry for them. Finally, I love the photo on your blog. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it!

Rachel
www.theflipflopgirl.com
2:30 PM
Rebecca said...

Hello! I am neither Christian nor male, but I loved this posting and have added an extract from it to my own blog. I've recently moved to Egypt and I'm experiencing my sexuality in a new way, simply because the men in the street here harass women so much. I'm seeing more clearly than ever in the streets of Cairo how female sexuality is a powerful force that makes men uncomfortable. I loved reading your perspective - it was a positive contribution in my efforts to get my head around women's sexuality. Thanks!

Saturday Rock Show

A few years back, I was talking with a man I worked with about the band U2. He was a huge fan, and I told him that I had seen them in concert on the Joshua Tree tour. He replied, "I wanted to go, but my parents wouldn't let me."

I had no answer to that, because I went the fall after I graduated from college.

This is my favorite U2 song. Period. No question. I have no idea what it means for Bono. For me, it is God's reply to a prayer. The chorus, "So let it go, and fade away" - we need to let our sin go, and let it fade away, so we can be wide awake to the possibilities for life.

From the movie Rattle and Hum, the single best version of the single best song this wonderful band ever did. By the way, I like Bono's channeling of Jim Morrison, all withdrawn and introspective at the beginning. Morrison did it because he was painfully shy; I think Bono was doing it to show the way we retreat in to ourselves in those most private moments.

Or maybe he was just tired. Anyway, here's the song.

Obama Overseas

There isn't much I can add to this sentiment.

He never once looked in to the eyes of anyone and saw in to their soul.

He just sunk a three pointer to a cheering group of troops in Kuwait.

He just had his Iraq policy endorsed by the Prime Minister of Iraq.

He just spoke before 200,000 in the Tiergarten in Berlin.

He just met with foreign leaders without once mentioning a pig.

Rock star?

Nah. Just the next President of these United States of America.

Obama's Success Is Good For John McCain

A while back, John McCain criticized Barack Obama for not visiting Iraq and Afghanistan recently. So, Obama set up a trip there, and also to Jordan, Israel, and Europe. In the process, he had his policy of phased withdrawal over sixteen months endorsed by the Iraqi Prime Minister, called for a renewed commitment to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and got a standing "O" from US forces there, went to Jordan and Israel and basically said it was time to move past finger-pointing and get the job of peace done, and wound up with a speech before 200,000 in Berlin.

McCain, meanwhile, spoke in New Hampshire, and ate at a German restaurant in Columbus, OH, after canceling a campaign trip to an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico due to a hurricane.

Years ago, this is the kind of thing that made the pundits barely hide their glee at the ineptitude of the Democratic Party. Except, of course, now it's the Republicans who look like they are piling out of a clown car during rush hour. McCain gets his timeline wrong on the role of the surge and an enhanced security situation in Anbar Province? Obviously, he's right and all he has to do is change the meaning of words and reverse the course of time to show it. McCain says that he would rather give speeches in foreign countries as President? Well, never mind that little trip to Colombia earlier this summer, or the campaign speech he gave in Canada recently. They don't count.

The Republicans can and have run far better campaigns than this. The only thing in their favor right now is they may be bottoming out before the convention, so they can only do better. This has been a very bad summer for John McCain.

So, obviously, it has been a good summer for John McCain. I'm quite sure we'll hear about that real soon.

Oh Good Lord

I realize that every liberal blogger is remarking on this, but the amount of stupid on the right has reached a tipping point, I do believe.

Imagine! A person printing out flyers for a public speech in a foreign country in the native language of that country! It's . . . It's . . . It's un-American! Obviously, because the country is Germany, it's almost a Nazi moment.

Among the thousand-million questions this entire stupid episode brings to mind, do these people on the right have any idea how offensive to the Germans this kind of thing is? Not only do they, probably, not know. In all likelihood, they do not care.

This Is What I Mean By A Good Discussion

I mentioned a couple days ago that Neil and I have been having a good discussion. Since I have exhausted my own position, and have no desire to begin repeating myself, I thought it might be good to provide a link, so that you might see what is possible when two people who disagree have a frank exchange of views without devolving in to a shouting match or name-calling.

I have no idea of this is some kind of turning point. I do know that I am far more satisfied with the outcome of this discussion than with others I have had in the past.

More On The SMU/Bush Library Business

Last week, I noted the release of a report by a committee of the South Central Jurisdiction on the proposed George W. Bush Presidential library to be located at Southern Methodist University. Today, David Waters tries to paint the issue as one not of principle but of politics. In the process he displays an ignorance of the theology, polity, and teachings of the United Methodist Church that is a wonder to behold.

Methodists such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who are conservative and Republican tend to agree on one set of social principles. Methodists such as George McGovern and Hillary Clinton who are liberal and Democratic tend to agree on another set of social principles. People in the pews tend to choose pastors and congregations that match their own political and partisan interpretations of scripture.

I've heard Methodist leaders on both sides of the sanctuary aisle lament that the church has been captured by the culture. I think it's worse than that. I think the church has surrendered to the culture.

First of all there are not different social principles. There is just the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church, first written in 1910, and affirmed at the united conferences of 1939 and 1968. The issue of "implementation" isn't one of political ideology because they aren't about politics, but carrying out Wesley's teaching that we are to be about serving the Kingdom of God through acts of justice in the world.

By adding the frame of the whole "people in the pews", and describing the way "people pick" clergy and congregations - wow. Ours is an episcopal polity, in which clergy serve a yearly term, appointed each year by the bishop with the advice of a cabinet of what were once known as presiding elders and are now known as District Superintendents. Local congregations do not "pick" clergy. They may or may not choose to support a particular appointed clergyperson, but that is not the same thing.

Finally, as the authors of the report clearly state, while the Presidential library clearly violates not just the Social Principles, but several other paragraphs of our Discipline, the contract between SMU and those who are proposing the library is binding, limiting the recourse of those opposed. Therefore, the issue isn't about politics. It's about the law. Our denominational law, the separation of church and state, and our integrity as a denomination.

It would be nice if a publication as reputable as Newsweek would publish something by someone who displayed at least passing familiarity with the structure of a church he was writing about.

Finally, George McGovern was and is a far better United Methodist than George W. Bush. See, part of the membership pledge is that one will support the local congregation through prayer, presence, gifts, and service.

'Nuff said.

Balls Of Purity

They're baaaaaaaccccckkkkk! Time magazine discovered the existence of Purity Balls, and did a story about them, a year and a half after the fashion magazine Glamour did so. I wrote a couple short pieces at the time, expressing my disgust at the very concept. Since they are now "news" because Time has discovered them, I thought it appropriate to find my original pieces, and to say a bit more about them.

First, however, props to digby for writing about them first, over two year ago. I think her most recent commentary is spot on, especially as regards the kind of silly writing Nancy Gibbs did for Time. Before going too much further, I would also recommend Duncan's comments as well. We shall return to one specific thing he wrote in a moment, but first I would like to turn to the "pledge" the father's recite at these Freudian Nightmare Events:

I, (daughter’s name)’s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.

There is so much to talk about here, one wonders where to begin. First, the whole "covering my daughter" thing - this is an invitation to incestuous pedophilia. Sorry, but I can't read it any other way. "High priest in my home"? I'm assuming, since he's a man, the Holy of Holies is the crapper off the master bedroom; please don't let the incense out. . . As for influencing generations to come, one could spend pages and hours doing both hilariously gross double entendres about this, or simply point out that it would be a negative influence, as in "Please don't allow me to be involved in such creepy crap ever again."

From digby's original piece comes a part of the pledge the girls make, and I will highlight one portion (the italics should be a clue) that I would like to take a bit of an issue with:

GIRLS RECITING PLEDGE:...to remain sexually pure...until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. ... I know that God requires this of me.. that he loves me...and that he will reward me for my faithfulness.

I would respond that the only thing God "requires" of any of us is to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly before our God. That's kind of a quote from that whole Bible thingy, but being a pagan myself, I suppose it's not fair of me to throw the Bible in an alleged Christian's face.

One point in atrios' comment I would like to lift out for amplification follows:

Generally our culture has a tremendous fear, almost revulsion, of the idea of female sexuality and sexual desire. Much of that is channeled to and projected onto teen females, where all sensible people agree that maybe it's not such a good idea for them to have sex for reasons they can't quite articulate but can usually be summed up with "if you were a parent you'd understand."

Being a parent of two young girls, I would argue that even if I were not such, I would be appalled by this kind of thing. Digby is correct when she points out that this has nothing to do with "purity" or even "sex" but is all about "the man" - a kind of primal patriarchy in which any woman under a roof is property to be guarded and protected by the male "high priest". Yet, like all such right-wing events that deal with this issue, the confusion and contradictions abound. As I wrote in my follow-up piece last February:

The second thing to notice about these ceremonies is their public nature. We often prefer to keep our sexual behavior, and our decisions about it, as private as possible. One of the cultural right's complaints about American society is its highly sexualized nature. Yet, here, right here, a very public display - an entire ceremony, complete with all the trappings of a festive occasion - regarding the sexuality of young women. Moving from the private sphere to the public sphere in this way creates an entirely new set of problems; now we have a social event in which the sexual behavior of young women becomes a matter not just for public scrutiny and comment, but examination.

If sex is such a private business, why in the world would such a public event take place? Obviously, because it really isn't about sex - yet it is so loaded with talk about sex and offers so much taboo-pushing in re the father-daughter relationship one wonders how they can square this particular dodecahedron.

One bit of information of which I was not aware, originally, was that some of the girls involved in this are as young as six. That's wrong on so many levels, but most basically - how in the world can a six year old understand what any of this is about, except perhaps doing what Daddy says, which creates a whole set of problems considering the boundary-blurring nature of the whole thing? It really is quite disgusting.

I titled this post as I did because the focus of these events, while they deal with the father-daughter relationship in a way that makes me feel quite uneasy, is the man. As a father, I cannot imagine putting either of my daughters in a position where they would pledge their sexual purity to my care in such a direct way. If these fathers were honest, and consistent, they would trust their role as parent in a more conventional way as a good deterrent to behavior of which they disapprove. Even with all the hormonal insistence and cultural and peer pressure to become sexually active early, I really don't know how a pledge really makes much of a difference, other than adding to the burden of guilt a young person goes through as they struggle through the conflicting arena of adolescence. It might even be nice to do a sociological survey of the success rate of this kind of thing - how many of these girls end up making it to their marriage beds unsullied by any previous contact with that dirty implement of boys and men.

Isn't it odd how there is this conflicting message being sent about sex? It is so special and so sacred it is to be avoided until absolutely necessary. Should any of these families follow through on these pledges, what possible understanding of sex can these women have when they reach marriage? I guess, like middle-class Victorians, they shall close their eyes and think of George Bush.

These are extraordinarily scary, not-very-vaguely unsettling things.

Music Monday

OK, I didn't get quite the response to the whole "classical" thing I thought I might. I especially thought Democracy Lover would chime in. However, I did get a couple requests. I had never heard of Vitas, nor this interpretation of "Lucia Di Lammermoor", but I know what he's talking about. I don't ever want to sing again.

Here is a funkified Chopin, courtesy of The Muppet Show - Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem doing his "Polonaisse in A Flat":

Finally, the late great Mistoslav Rostropovich performing Dvorak's Cello Concerto:

I've been thinking of topics for next week. In honor of it being summer, and roadtrip time, I think songs that are great for trips in cars, especially with the top down. Give me some loving on this, folks.

Alternative Readings - How To Interpret The Bible

I suppose this might get tiresome to some, but I wanted to have some fun with Neil's more than occasional attempts at Biblical exegesis. The other day, he offered up this post, entitle "Judging is a two-way street".

Only God truly knows the condition of someone’s heart. People get mighty upset if a person’s professed Christianity is questioned. Some of that is justified, but they miss a larger point: Many people will insist that someone is saved and not realize they are being just as judgmental.

Think about it: Claiming that someone isn’t saved implies that you know their heart. But claiming someone is saved implies the same thing. So a little consistency should be in order.

That is how he introduces his topic. This is one of those times I'm left speechless, wondering what, exactly, he means by all this.

In any event, he uses three different snippets of scripture to attempt to make his point, which he states immediately following the above-captured quote, that Jesus never said we cannot judge, only that we shouldn't judge "hypocritically" (italics in original). First, Matthew 7:1-5 (as Neil doesn't reveal what translation he uses, I will be magnanimous enough to say that I am using the Revised English Bible):

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. For as you judge others, so you will yourselves be judged, and by whatever measure you deal out to others will be dealt to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in you brother's eye, with never a thought for the plank in your own? How can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own? You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's.

The second is from Matthew 7:16-20:

You will recognize them [false prophets] by their fruit. Can grapes be picked from briars, or figs from thistles? A good tree always yields sound fruit. A tree that does not yield sound fruit is cut down and thrown on the fire. That is why I say you will reconize them by their fruit.

Finally, he pulls out 2 Corinthians 11:13-15:

Such people are sham apostles, confidence tricksters masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder! Satan himself masquerades as an angels of light, so it is easy enough for his agents to masquerade as agents of good. But their fate will match their deeds.

He ties these verses together by assuming that they are all addressing the same topic, which on a cursory, literal reading they seem to do. In fact, however, the first two short pericopes and the last are written by different authors, with a different audience, in different literary genres, with different intentions, in different settings, addressing very different concerns. One could, I suppose, argue that the novels of Benjamin Disraeli and the poetry of Alfred Lord Tennyson are tied together because both were Victorian gentlemen, and therefore the points they make are similar, their intentions are similar, and therefore construct an entire monograph about the uniformity of Victorian literature. If one were to do so, however, without the caveat that different styles of writing, different intentions, different political, social, religious, and other points-of-view might be in place to limit such a univocal reading, I do believe that most reviewers would give such a reading a thumbs down. One can only stretch words so far before they become unrecognizable.

First, let us consider the combination of genre, with the implicit consideration of audience and authorial intention. In the latter case, we are limited to guessing by inference, rather than any substantive information. Yet, these guesses are most likely pretty good, based upon the internal evidence.

To the Matthean passages. These are part of the much larger exhortation famously known as the Sermon on the Mount. They are paralleled in Luke's Gospel by the Sermon on the Plain. One of the issues the author of Matthew's Gospel struggles with is to show Jesus' rootedness in his Jewish identity, religious world-view, and history. He even attempts to draw parallels between the life of Jesus and the whole history of the Jewish people. Here, Jesus is portrayed as Moses, speaking to the people from the mountain top, bringing them a way of life unique to his followers, as Moses presented the Law on Horeb as the unique manifestation of God's lovingcare for the Hebrew people. Part of the distinctiveness and scandal of Jesus message here is the oft-repeated "You have heard it said . . . But I say . . ." In these instances, Jesus is taking a well-known part of the Mosaic code and superseding it. He does so on no authority other than his own.

Having set the specific context of the verses in question, then, Jesus here is indeed calling on people not to judge. He doesn't equivocate, and say, "Don't judge except when you are willing to stand under the same judgment." He says, quite clearly, "Don't judge because you will stand under the same judgment." The "judging" here is a direct reference to the nit-piking legal issues dealt with in much of Exodus and Leviticus (all that ox-goring, coat-stealing business). He is saying that our relations as disciples is not to be ruled by a law of retribution. We are, rather, to recognize our own fallibility and limitedness.

Neil also leaves out the intervening verses, various short epigrams including "Do not give dogs what is holy"; the whole "Ask and you will receive; seek, and you will find" business; and, of course, the so-called "golden rule" - "Always treat others as you wold like them to treat you".

His exhortation warning of "false prophets" has no link, directly or otherwise, with his exhortation not to judge. There just isn't any. In the earlier instance, he is distancing his own stance vis-a-vis the behavior of those who nit-pick the law to determine who is and is not just. In the latter case, he is telling people that there are criteria to determine who is, and is not, a false prophet. He uses the agrarian analogy of "fruits", which many of his hearers would understand, to draw out what he is saying. Neil also does not quote the passage that follows, in which Jesus says "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of Heaven". That is tied in, in many ways not only to the false prophet sayings, but both are tied in to the context of Jesus' day, with the apocalyptic hope of the coming Day of the LORD. Jesus is here referencing common religio-political understandings that, soon, the LORD would deliver the people from the oppression of Rome. Yet, Jesus is also saying his way is the true way, and is to be measured by its results (kind of like the LORD in Exodus, who, when asked to give a sign by Moses, tells Moses the sign will be when he does what he is told; again, there is a parallel here with the scriptural account of the LORD's dealings with the people of Israel that is implicit but still needs to be heard).

I find it striking that Neil would pick this particular passage from 2 Corinthians to boost his argument concerning "judging" and "fruits". Part of a much larger argument from Paul, in which the apostle is chastising the Corinthian Church for denigrating him personally (!!) and for (possibly) embracing what Paul calls "a different gospel", the passage in question deals specifically with various claimants to the title "apostle" who have visited Corinth after Paul, run him down, and offered a different version of the gospel. The "sham apostles" are very specific individuals who are causing many problems within the Corinthian congregation, problems Paul has been dealing with through various visits and letters to them. If one reads 2 Corinthians from the beginning of chapter 10 through 12:10, one will see that this little passage is meaningless outside the context of Paul trying to remind the Corinthians of the roots of his own authority, and the lack of any authority for those who come after. Is Paul "judging" here? No. Is he talking about "false prophets" who bear "bad fruit"? No. He merely states they are con men. They are liars. He compares them to Satan "masquerading as an angel of light", but he does not say they are so.

In all, when considering these verses in context, not just of their literary genre, but within the broader context of the writings themselves, I am not really sure how one can construct any argument whatsoever that ties these verses together. Certainly, I do not believe it is possible to do so and leave the verses with any integrity. Being a self-refuting, po-mo, clueless coward, however, what do I know? Especially since I'm a pagan.

Some Thoughts On Genetics

I suppose I should show that I know at least a little about the whole question of genetics, as I claimed that Neil displayed a marked lack of understanding on this branch of biology. Now, I would reiterate I am no expert, but an interested lay-person who remembers some high school and college biology, and has done a bit of reading on it since. I also have an older sister whose Masters and Ph.D. are in genetics, and teaches biology as Lincoln University, in southeastern PA. Any mistakes are, obviously my own.

When Gregor Mendel's research on pea plants was rediscovered early in the last century, it became clear over time there was a disjunction between his research on breeding and Darwin's account of evolution by natural selection. After the Second World War, following up research that had been conducted during the 1930's, there emerged what became known as "the synthesis" - a new understanding of the relationship between evolution and genetics. This understanding resulted, in one instance, in the science of population genetics, which embodies the synthesis pretty exclusively. Darwin's theory accounted for change in populations, but not having any inkling of the mechanism. Mendel's gene theory accounted for differences among individuals, but not how those differences occurred within populations. The synthesis simply restated the issue thus - evolution occurs both on the individual level and the level of populations. The way to measure this is through a statistical analysis of the rate of genetic mutation and how those mutations breed true.

The vast bulk - well over 99% - of genetic mutations are detrimental to the survival of the individual. The tiny few that survive are inconsequential - hair color, skin color, height, eye color, that kind of thing - and do not result in speciation. A good example from artificial selection is dogs. Chihuahuas and Great Danes are both the same species, and are virtually identical, genetically, with wild wolves. Yet, how many people looking at the first would consider it breedable with the second? There are different species of fish that are genetically diverse yet appear almost identical! So, physiognomy is no clue to genetic relations.

The rate at which DNA errors occur can be mapped and tracked statistically. Given a large enough breeding population, and controlling for other factors - changes in environment, the physical separation of one breeding population from another, the way a given genetic mutation results in an increased chance of survival - one can also see how the process works, over time, and, roughly speaking (within a given statistical margin of error) how long the process takes.

There is not one magical day, some 45,000 years ago when a bunch of homo habilis suddenly produced a homo sapien that was incapable of breeding true with the rest. That's not science, that's just silly (thus Neil's whole "male/female" question). The process takes thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of generations, which translate in to tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Indeed, Neil mentions the various "explosions" of speciation that have occurred in geological time, the Cambrian explosion being the best known. Yet that "explosion" occurred over a time frame unfathomable to the human mind - several hundred millennia - as the result of increasingly friendly environmental conditions on the planet.

All this is to say the issue of speciation is far more complicated a process than presented in the "questions" Neil poses. It is a gradual process, occurring over thousands of years. I hope, first, I am generally correct in my discription. I also hope, second, I am relatively clear.

Patriotic Sentiments?

I was DJing a wedding reception at the Oglesby, IL B.P.O.E. clubhouse yesterday. Before the guests arrived, but after I had set up my equipment, I was sitting in the clubhouse bar, drinking a diet Coke (yes, I was, so there!) and my eye happened on a small poster on the bulletin board. I read it through several times, and thought about it. I have tried to find it on the web, and on the Elks' website, and while I'm sure if I had a bit more patience I probably could find it, I wanted to get this post out there, so I am paraphrasing it here:

Remember, it's the SOLDIER not the journalist who guarantees freedom of the press. It's the SOLDIER not the poet who guarantees freedom of speech. It's the soldier not the activist who guarantees freedom of assembly. It's the SOLDIER who wears the flag, whose coffin is draped in the flag that gives other the freedom to burn the flag.

We have heard a lot of this kind of thing since 2001. Our freedoms are protected and guaranteed by our military.

Actually, this is not only wrong, it is almost fundamentally anti-American. Our freedoms are guaranteed by laws and the Constitution of the United States. Our military does not protect our freedom. They protect our physical existence from physical threats. Since most attacks on our freedoms come from legal issues - laws passed without regard to constitutional provisions - the military does nothing to deal with the very real threats to our freedoms posed by such laws.

There are countries, however, where the military is placed above the legal and political mechanics of governance. They are called military dictatorships. We do not live in one - yet - so I do not see where celebrating the military for protecting our freedoms make any sense whatsoever except to desensitize us to the possibility of such an eventuality.

This is not to denigrate the military in any way. On the contrary, it is to remind people that, in the United States, the military is under civilian, political control. It does not exist to protect our freedoms. It exists, as do all military bodies, to protect the physical and political integrity of the state from threats of violence. Members of the military do not swear an oath to protect our freedoms; they swear an oath to protect the the country from all threats foreign and domestic. With the possible exceptions of the War of 1812 and the Second World War, the United States has never faced an adversary that threatened our sovereignty in any substantive way. Yet, when called upon, they put themselves in harm's way without a thought, and very often with an enthusiasm that should make all Americans proud.

This doesn't mean they protect our freedoms. That is done by courts of law upholding provisions of the Constitution.

Saturday Rock Show

Tool is among the most amazing bands around. They are certainly not everyone's cup of tea. Their official videos are bizarre, disturbing, and do not feature the band at all. They seem anonymous. Yet, they are accomplished songwriters, rhythmically complex, and lyrically dealing with themes of alienation, the struggle to feel in a world that seeks only to destroy feeling, rage at hypocrisy, and (occasionally) offering a positive glimpse of life and its possibilities.

"Rosetta Stoned" off their release 10,000 Eyes, however, is different. The story of a man's encounter with an extra-terrestrial, it might also be the dictation of a man out of his mind. Which is it? The nice thing is the song refuses to answer the question of whether or not the encounter is real. The man is certainly insane, and admits he was on a combination of chemicals ("Dead Head chemistry") bound to make anyone perceive things . . . differently.

In short, there aren't too many songs like "Rosetta Stoned" out there. Were I given the opportunity, this song would be the first piece of evidence that Tool belongs in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and its singer/lyricist Maynard James Keenan deserved to be our poet-laureate.

Two things. Because of the recording technique (multi-tracking the lyrics slightly out of synch), the words are printed below the video. Some of the video images, taken from the film Fire In The Sky, might be disturbing to some viewers. This being Tool, should anyone out there be offended by dirty words, you might just want to skip right on over this one.

All righty then. Picture this if you will.
10 to 2 AM, X, Yogi DMT, and a box of Krispy Kremes,
in my need-to-know post just outside Area 51
Contemplating the whole chosen people thingy when
just then a flaming stealth banana split the sky like one would hope but
never really expect to see in a place like this
Cutting right angle doughnuts on a dime and stopping right at my Birkenstocks
and me yelping... HOLY FUCKING SHIT
Holy fucking shit
Fucking shit
Holy fucking shit
Holy fucking shit
Holy fucking shit...fucking shit...fucking shit

Then the X-Files being, looking
like some kinda blue-green Jackie Chan
With Isabella Rossellini lips and breath that reeked of vanilla chig champa
Did a slow-mo Matrix decent outta the butt end of the banana vessel
and hovered above my bug-eyes,
My gaping jaw,
And my sweaty L. Ron Hubbard upper lip,
And all I could think was,
I hope Uncle Quark here doesn't notice
That I pissed my fucking pants.

So light in his way
Like an apparition,
He had me crying out,
Fuck me!
It's gotta be
the Deadhead chemistry!
The blotter got right on top of me
Got me seeing E motherfucking T!

And after calming me down with some orange slices and some fetal spooning
E.T. revealed to me his singular purpose,
He said you are the chosen one.
The one who will deliver the message.
A message of hope for those who choose to hear it
And a warning for those who do not.
Me, the chosen one
They chose me
And I didn't graduate from fucking high school!

You had better
You had better
You had better
You had better listen

Then he looked right through me
With somniferous almond eyes
Don't even know what that means
Must remember to write it down,
This is so real
Like the time Dave floated away
See my heart is pounding
'Cause this shit never happens to me!

Can't breathe right now

It was so real
Like I woke up in Wonderland
Also a bit terrifying
I don't wanna be all alone
When I tell this story
And can anyone tell me why
ya'll sound like Peanuts parents
Will I ever be coming down?
This is so real
Finally it's my lucky day
See my heart is racing
'Cause this shit never happens to me

I can't breathe right now

You believe me don't you
Please believe what I just said
See the dead ain't tourin'
And this wasn't all in my head.
See they took me by the hand
And invited me right in
Then they showed me something
I don't even know where to begin

Strapped down to my bed
Feet cold and eyes red
I'm out of my head
Am I alive am I dead
Can't remember what they said
God damn shit the bed
High eye (repeated)

I believe you (repeated, heard faintly in background)

Overwhelmed as one would be
Placed in my position
Such a heavy burden now to be the one
Born to bear and bring to all
The details of our ending
To write it down for all the world to see.
But I forgot my pen
Shit the bed again
Typical.

Strapped down to my bed
Feet cold and eyes red
I'm out of my head
Am I alive am I dead?
Sunkist and sudafed
Gyroscopes and infrared
Won't help the brain-dead
Can't remember what they said
God damn shit the bed
IIIIIII can't remember what they said to me
Can't remember what they said
to make me out to be a hero
Can't remember what he said

Bob help me!
Can't remember what he said

Don't know, won't know (repeated)
God damn shit the bed!

I Started It, So I Might As Well Try To Do It Right

This quickie post I did last night has attracted a lot more attention than I anticipated. To be honest, I think it's a mish-mash, partly the result of having been written on the fly. I think, however, that have some kind of obligation to move the discussion forward a bit.

We got a bit bogged down in ad hominem amateur-hour psycho- and sexual-analysis of Neil, something I tend not to like on principle (and, yes, I did some of it, too; doesn't make me so much a hypocrite as human). Yet, considering Neil's well-mannered, thoughtful, in-depth, and honest response, I think we have done remarkably well trying to keep the whole subject on track.

In order to do so, however, I am strapping on my virtual, rhetorical Kevlar and wading in to the thick of Neil's territory. Specifically, this comment, which I shall reprint in full, without additions or subtractions, without interspersed commentary (one of the minor annoyances of Neil's), and with the link above provided just so he can't get all upset and claim I didn't post the whole comment:

ER, Alan and Geoffrey,

Thanks for making my day. I’ve been laughing on and off since clicking on the incoming link from Geoffrey’s post. Wow, what an obsession! But I must say I am cheered. It is a best case scenario: You are reading your “enemy’s” writings here and I don’t have to waste time with your comments.

ER, you are seriously mistaken about me saying I would edit your comments. What I said in my last email was this (go check for yourself): “I’ll just moderate you and approve what I feel like. I just wanted to give you fair warning.” That was after I had said, “I let you have the last word, but please don’t comment again. Nothing personal, but I’m tired of having the same conversation over and over. It’s all been said. We’re both wasting our time, and we both have better things to do. Feel free to criticize me all you like from your blog.” ER, you’re a nice guy and probably a great neighbor and friend. I wish you well.

Alan, just for the record, you weren’t banned for being gay, or liberal, or a phony (again, I love it when a guy who blogs on the joys of gay camping and hanging out with lots of naked guys in a pool - including his “husband” - likes to pose as an orthodox Christian. I mean, pro-gay theology is bad enough but even if you bought those lies you couldn’t justify that kind of behavior. And don’t deny it and say I’m lying. I zinged you on that back in the Wesley Blog days and you came back with a lame “don’t believe everything you read on the Internet line. I do believe what you wrote on your own blog.). I knew all those traits before. I just got tired of your endless nit-picking. It sucks the fun out of blogging. And you saying I’m obsessed with gays is comical. Just because I blog on the most divisive issue in the church doesn’t mean I’m obsessed. By that definition I’m obsessed with pro-life, theology, evangelism, etc., and if you look at where I spend my time I’m much more obsessed with my wife, my kids, prison ministry, CareNet, church, Bible study, mission trips, giving, prayer, accountabilty groups, guitar, etc.

Wow, I’m really an obsessive guy! Thanks for the free diagnosis.

Geoffrey, your bits typically self-destruct with po-mo reasoning. I’ve found it is easiest to let you do your own refutations.

Seriously, I hope you guys see the light someday and repent of your pagan belief systems. In the mean time, keep reading here! And gossip all you like about me at your places.

Rather than deal with the substance of the criticisms I leveled at his post on the DNA of human beings and chimpanzees (actually a pretty interesting subject, but one Neil handles poorly), he addresses the three of us in odd ways. First, he claims that he never "banned" Erudite Redneck, yet in the quoted section above, he specifically "disinvites" my Okie pal from posting at his, Neil's, blog. I don't even know what to make of this kind of inconsistency (to be generous).

As for his treatment of Alan, what he gives with the left hand, he takes away with the right. He says he wasn't banned for being gay, but for being nit-picky. He denies an obsession with gay sex, yet spends the bulk of the paragraph writing about an innocent post of Alan's on a camping trip. Only a mind fettered with odd images of what happens when gay men go camping could have turned Alan's post in to something lurid and lascivious. Yet, Neil did do, and continues to do so. He also says that Alan's belief that the Church should be open to all people, regardless of sexual orientation is a "lie".

Finally, me he dismisses off-handedly, in a way that sounds intelligent and insightful but smacks of a certain reluctance to take another person's argument on its merits. To say that my beliefs "self-destruct" is at once silly and begging for proof. Everyone's belief system destroys itself. Mine is in constant need of the most basic infrastructural investment and improvement. That is what it means to live a life of faith; continually challenged by life, when I find that something I have held to be part of my life of faith can no longer stand the strain I, obviously, discard it.

He calls us "pagans". ER is a member of the United Church of Christ, a branch of various Reformed Churches in the Congregational tradition. Alan is a Presbyterian, and I don't hold that against him. Like Neil, I am a United Methodist, and my wife is senior pastor at Poplar Grove United Methodist Church, Poplar Grove, IL. I don't know how that qualifies as paganism, but there you go.

Anyway, I print all this not so much to have the last word, but to redirect the conversation to the substantive issue that began this discussion. I am asking those who have participated in this discussion to do so with an eye on that issue. I will not delete comments; I will not ask people to stop posting. I only ask that a serious subject be addressed in a serious manner (well, OK, there can be humor involved). There is no mandate here to like, or perhaps even respect, one another. I am asking that we deal with the issue at hand.

I realize Neil will in all likelihood not darken my doorway. More's he pity, because I am offering an opportunity for him to revise and extend his remarks in his original post for us. I also think, in all fairness, that he does need to address the personal comments he directed at us. I also think he needs to address his . . . inconsistencies . . . that have been pointed out. I, for one, will be happy to admit I am wrong if evidence is given to show that I was, indeed wrong.

Anyway, there it is, and let the games begin. I hope some games begin.

Outdoing Oneself In Absurdity

Oh dear God in the most high heaven. Charles Krauthammer's column in today's Washington Post has perhaps the silliest, most absurd line I have read by a so-called "serious" political pundit. This is an instance where reading just one line makes me want to stop, because the line is so silly, the rest of the column might actually be kind of good. If you bottom out early, you have no where to go but up. I will present the wind-up, then the pitch, in italics (added by me, of course):

Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn.

One can earn money. One can earn a reputation. One can earn a nickname. One does not "earn" a national monument in another country.

Now, I realize this is literal nitpicking. Or, at least sounds like it. Yet, if we are to take Krauthammer to be speaking metaphorically, it might be important to rephrase what he intended, as follows:

What Obama does not seem to understand is that only after proving oneself should one be allowed to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate.

Is that true, however? Is it necessary to have achieved . . . something . . . in . . . someone's . . . eyes before one should be allowed to do something that others have done before? What, after all, had John Kennedy done when he stood at the Gate and said, in very bad German, "Ich bin ein Berliner!"? What had Ronald Reagan done when he stood in the same spot and said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"? Obviously, Kennedy wasn't really a resident of West Berlin, fenced in by a foreign power (ironically enough, the wall was built to keep the East Germans from getting in, not West Germans from heading east; old satellite photos taken before the wall fell showed East Germany to be pretty dark, except for a small smudge of light - West Berlin). Reagan's exhortation to Gorbachev had an ironic coda, because Gorbachev (and Reagan) had nothing at all to do with the tearing down. The people of East Berlin did it on their own.

Krauthammer's notion that one can only "do something" once one has "done something" else is silly. Barack Obama happens to be the de facto Democratic nominee for the Presidency of the United States. Germany is a united country, an ally, and the plaza (or, to be properly German, der plast) around the Gate is a nice wide open space that would hold a sizable crowd. One should assume that Obama, being a historic figure, would attract a sizable crowd. Only in the minds of someone as silly as Charles Krauthammer does the sentence above have any meaning or significance.

If there's anything more in the column worth mentioning, let me know.

I'm Not Sure What To Say About This (UPDATED With Additions)

I have a confession to make. I have chided ER in the past about his occasional need to travel to fundamentalist Christian websites and get embroiled in arguments. Yet, I, too, commit the same sin. Neil's 4Simpson's blog is a favorite of mine to visit.

Why?

If I knew the answer, maybe I would avoid it.

Anyway, I saw this post, and was wondering what, exactly, Neil's point was in posting it. The title is misleading, because it attempts to dismiss an article that points out the fact, well-known among scientists and those scientifically literate, that human beings and chimps share all but %1.5 percent of their genetic code. That "45,000,000" number represents the differences. Now, this has been known for some time, and is unremarkable. This makes chimps far closer, genetically, to human beings than any other living creature, which is important for all sorts of reasons.

Yet, Neil, being a creationist, attempts to make something out of nothing here. The analogy he uses as a closer is about as dumb as it gets.

Nearly all cars have 4 wheels. That doesn’t mean they were genetically related, just that the designers have a model that works well so they replicate it. Perhaps next time the Chronicle will have headlines stating that “chimpanzees and humans are both carbon based life forms” or “Houston is hot in the summer.”

Neil also notes that there are common genetic strains among all life on earth. Nothing surprising there, since the biochemistry that governs evolution would provide for carrying all sorts of material that is just baggage. Birds have genes for teeth, yet those genes are chemically "switched off"; scientists have developed birds with teeth by turning those genes on.

Again, this is no big deal.

Was Neil's point that this article was not scientific in some way? Was his point concerning what he calls "the unproven assumption" about common ancestry for humans and chimps? Since the genetic similarity between humans and chimps is far closer than any other related species, it seems to me pretty clear this proves the whole common ancestry thing. It isn't about using an unproven assumption; it's about using science to test a theory.

Now, I know that Neil says truth is correspondence to reality. He and I have gone down that road before. Since this is a case of reality not corresponding to Neil's understanding of truth, I just wonder how he deals with it?

Oh, that's right. He wrote this post to show that he deals with it by showing off his lack of scientific literacy.

UPDATE: Maybe this isn't fair. Maybe it isn't even nice. The following partial paragraph contains what, I am quite sure, Neil accepts as devastating, unanswered questions that refute the whole concept of evolution.

It would have been nice if they had explained how the DNA could have tens of millions of changes in only a few million years (according to their theory), as well as how it kept changing at the same pace throughout the human population without us veering off into multiple species. Or if it changed at a rapid pace, why did it do so for some and not others? And how did the males and females just happen to evolve similarly and simultaneously?

The scientific ignorance behind these questions is staggering. The idea that "only" could be applied to the phrase "a few million years" by a human being genetically programmed to live no more than 120, and limited to less than that by a variety of environmental factors is surprising. Human beings think of a couple millennia as a long time. Even a couple centuries is almost beyond our comprehension. A hundred millennia? A thousand?

The whole "male and female" thing just defies credulity. Does he honestly believe this is some kind of devastating question? If so, that only shows how truly ignorant of contemporary science he is.

How sad.

Some Liberal Theological Thoughts On What Happens When We Die

This is part of a larger project, I guess, on giving a positive statement concerning what I believe. Rather than be all critical, or at least only critical, I thought it might be important to talk about what I believe in a positive manner.

One subject that really gets me - and I am serious about this - is the whole issue of heaven. When I was but a wee little lad, I wondered where, exactly, in the Bible people found detailed information on what happens when we die. All this "believers go to heaven, non-believers go to hell" business has no basis in Scripture. I see no way one can even tease it out through an interpretive scheme.

The best counter-argument I come up with is to discuss the passage in which Jesus debates the Sadducees on the resurrection. At the time Jesus lived, two of the main bodies of Jewish thought were the Pharisees (with whom Jesus often sparred, but mostly over details rather than in any serious break) and the Sadducees. The latter were a group that held official posts in the Temple. They were seen as compromised politically and religiously because the Temple was desecrated by the image of the Emperor in the forecourt and the Roman flag flying over the top (for details, see N. T. Wright's The New Testament and the People of God). A main difference between the two groups was that the Pharisees held a belief in the resurrection of the dead; the Sadducees denied such a belief. When questioned about the resurrection of the dead, the Sadducees got all literal and legal and asked Jesus what happens to a man after the resurrection who has remarried because his first wife predeceased him; to whom is he married? Like most literalists, they thought they had him there . . .

Jesus responds by telling the Sadducees they were thinking of the time after the resurrection in the wrong way. The old rules will not apply.

Paul, educated by the renowned Pharisaical rabbi Gamaliel, embraced he idea of the resurrection of the dead, and expands upon the notion, in most detail in 1 Corinthians 15.

As Jurgen Moltmann points out in the first section of his The Coming of God, in which he deals with the question of personal salvation in light of Christian eschatology, even these detailed accounts leave many questions unanswered and unanswerable. He wrestled gamely with them, but the results are as much speculation as anything.

These detailed discussions do not contain anything about pearly gates. They do not speak of a place in the clouds. The "streets of gold" reference comes from the New Jerusalem passages in Revelations, which deals with the final consummation of history.

I will be honest enough to say that, even though I say it every time I recite the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed, I am troubled by the whole "resurrection of the dead" thing, Paul's argument in 1 Cor. 15 notwithstanding. Perhaps it's true. Perhaps not. Yet, I feel far better being troubled by my misgivings over an actual historical doctrine of the church than I am about whether I will float away on wings to a cloud city or spend eternity stoking the furnaces of hell. These are myths, the syncretistic result of melding various incongruous non-Christian myths and beliefs about the afterlife and baptizing them.

The clearest thing I get out of a reading of Scripture about what happens when we die is this. At some point, those who have died "in Christ" will be raised from the dead, gather around the throne of the Father and the Lamb who was slain, and sing a hymn of praise. Those who are not so lucky get chucked in to the pit reserved for the devil and his angels, but once that bundling and chucking occurs, the entire thing gets wiped away, annihilated. Since the alternative - that when we die, our bodies are worm and fly and bacteria food, and anything that makes us uniquely "I" becomes energy for new life on a bit of a smaller scale - results in the same thing as the Bible's description of what happens to unregenerate at the end of time (annihilation, the removal from existence), I fail to see how this is, well, scary or frightening. Since I will be no more, worrying, caring, being sad about it, mourning my loss - these are among the myriad things on the endless list of things I will no longer be doing. Indeed, it makes no logical sense to speak of an "I" in this state at all.

More to the point (at least for me), is that I really am not all that vexed by the question of what happens after we die (if that sentence has any meaning at all). I do not believe that is why Jesus taught what he did, and suffered and died. I do not believe the Church exists to make sure I, or anyone else, ends up with a harp floating on a cloud. I do not believe that a God defined by the prodigal grace we see in Jesus would, through some arbitrary decision unrelated to any act or decision on my part, would separate us from that prodigal grace.

I suppose spending time writing what I believe about something I don't think about all that much might sound odd, even self-refuting. Yet, final questions, including about our own finality, are part and parcel of living. Different belief systems offer different answers, and I really don't know how to deal with them except to say the Bible offers this as an answer, but whether one believes the answer (and its underlying premises) is neither here nor there. Since all we need do is confess that we believe Jesus is the unique manifestation of God for all humanity, I really don't see what the big deal is.

Since Bush Dirties Everything He Comes Near . . .

There has been quite an uproar in my denomination over the decision to put the Bush Library (what possible books would be included in such an institution?) at Southern Methodist University. At General Conference there was a resolution demanding the South Central Jurisdiction do something about this travesty. Well, the report came back, and it seems the denomination's hands are tied.

Apparently, SMU went and signed all sorts of contracts and legal documents that limit the ability of the denomination to keep this pus-filled boil off one of the flagship institutions of higher learning our denomination has going. While some members of the SCJ committee have said that "it's not over", the best they can hope for is to put up some firewall to protect the "integrity" of SMU from the threat of infiltration by an institution dedicated to furthering the Bush-view of the world.

Since Bush has no respect for the law, I see no reason why the UMC should. Get out from under the weight of this contract, by hook or by crook. Keep that monstrosity away from anything having to do with my beloved denomination.

Some Liberal Theological Thoughts On The Bible

I suppose a bit of context is in order here. Over at Marshall Art, they're all in a dither about a stupid lawsuit a man is bringing against two Bible publishers. I fail to see what's to get upset about, but then again, I don't view the Bible in quite the same way as Marshall and some of his commenters.

As a source of authority for the Christian Church and its teaching, the Bible has no equal. All the silly, meaningless debates about what, precisely, it means to call the Bible "the word of God" are beside the point; the issue is, simply put, one of where we rest our case for what we believe. It took several hundred years for the final canon of the Bible to be settled, after serious disputes and not a little robe-renting. Fifteen hundred years later, Martin Luther took the extraordinary step of removing from the Bible several books, and portions thereof, that he felt had not place, including the wonderful book of Tobit, and the Wisdom of Solomon. He also had issues with the Epistle of James (all that works-righteousness stuff) and the Apocalypse (it was so dense and confusing even a trained scholar like Luther had problem figuring it out). Since then, we've had the LDS add an entire Testament, and the general trend to downplay the Hebrew Scriptures (all those New Testaments with the Psalms, you know).

There is nothing magical about the Bible. There is nothing inside the Bible that creates through reading some instantaneous change. People get out of the Bible what they put in; if they are reading looking for wisdom or insight or some key to a particular problem, more than likely they will find an answer. If they are looking for the inerrant Truth about Life, the Universe, and Everything, provided they are willing to suspend all that we now know about the way the world works, they will find it. Neither of these things are reasons to venerate the Bible; neither of these approaches to scripture make it what it is.

Simply put, the Bible and the Church were birthed together. What the earliest adherents of a belief that, in Jesus, something unique and unprecedented in human history had happened did was set down their impressions of what this event meant. For some, even most of the people then alive, it meant nothing at all because they had never heard of it. For those exposed to it, some found it silly, some found it blasphemous, and some found it life-transforming. These last bequeathed to us a testimony of their own struggles with what, exactly, this meant for them. It has been offered to us as a guide. No more, no less.

Making more of the Bible than it is has been a curious pastime among many Christians. Whether that means imbuing it with magical powers or seeing it as some kind of magic wand to be waved for our edification, instruction, and judgment, we are transferring to the Bible qualities that reside in God alone. The Bible is "Holy" because it is a testimony of who God is. It is not "Holy" in and for itself. The Bible is the source of our understanding of what it means to be a Christian because human beings need a source.

I suppose in the eyes of some this diminishes the Bible in some way. I suppose I should be honest and say I don't understand why.

Beyond Satire

In light of the New Yorker cover kerfuffle, I thought it would be interesting to investigate the reaction of some seriously funny folks to our right-wing fellow-Americans. Thus we turn to this post yesterday at Sadly, No!, in which Brad, in the midst of attempting to make fun of some seriously stupid words and acts lets loose a "Dean Scream" and pronounces himself at the end of his rope:

* …I actually find it a very enlightening piece of commentary that exposes the Nazi Left’s tendency to coddle our enem…

YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAARGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

OK, I can’t take it anymore. The layers of sheer insanity on display at all of these right-wing blogs is really getting me down, to the point where satirizing them becomes nothing more than a joyless, reflexive compulsion. It seems that every time I come up with some ridiculous new way to lampoon these crazy fools, they somehow manage to write something that make Hunter Thompson’s infamous mescaline-and-ether binges look positively tame. Life is horrible.

This is the problem with satire and humor. Insanity isn't funny. It's sad, and it's frightening, and that there are those who take insane people seriously isn't funny, but frightening. Whether it's Michelle Malkin or the folks at RedState or the usual suspects who get a coal-raking at Sadly,No!, there just comes a point where laughing at them makes no sense, because they honestly believe that the satirical things said about them are true.

There are people on the right who honestly believe that Barack Obama is a closet terrorist, who will invite more plane-flying terrorists to take down our buildings, institute shari'a, and abort all Christian fetuses in the 38th week. There are people on the right who honestly believe the Democratic Party hates the United States, despises our military, and would subsume our Constitution under the supranational authority of the United Nations. There are people on the right who actually believe that George Bush has never lied to the American people, that our current Iraqi adventure is a noble good that has accomplished so much, including recently discovering the true whereabouts of Sadam Hussein's WMD arsenal, thus legitimating the entire enterprise.

I could go on and on with the list of insane things people on the right believe - I recently asked an interlocutor what, exactly, is "the homosexual agenda" I keep hearing about - but I hope my point is clear. It is impossible to laugh at people who, when confronted with the fact that the things they proclaim are true are only worth mocking turn around and say, "But, but . . . it's all true!", we have reached a point where the relationship between what occurs in the real world and what occurs in the minds of those who want to be a part of our public discourse has been severed so completely that repairing the damage seems beyond hope.

There are those who see the New Yorker cover as depicting reality. That is why the Obama campaign is miffed. Yes, it was an attempt at humor. The problem is, for some, this is no joke, but a clear and present danger to our nation and the world; Obama has to fight this kind of crap coming from the right on a daily basis. Why should he have to deal with an attempted lampoon of the right that only reinforces this nonsense?

I find it interesting that so many on the right paint liberals as humorless. There was a time, I think, when earnest lefties and liberals drew some imaginary line and said, "Thou shalt not make light of [insert pet project/issue]", and that only made people see them as humorless. Thus, George Carlin, in an attempt to drive home the point, did an entire routine in which he tried to show that rape could be the subject of humor. Tasteless? Probably. Unlike John McCain's stupid joke unearthed yesterday, the difference is the Carlin was trying to make a point, whereas McCain was merely being an ass.

The major difference, as I see it, is this. In the past, these "humorless" liberals were young, idealistic folks who saw attempted humor at their expense as an attack upon their views. The right, currently, sees satirical takedowns as confirmation of the things they say and believe. They don't get the joke, because they don't realize they are the joke.

To Prove A Point

I said the other day that I tend to gravitate to sad, melancholy songs. That is true, but I also love real good love songs. I have had this song going through my head for the past couple days, oddly enough, so I thought I would share it, first, to prove that I'm not exactly a sour puss. Second, this is one of those great songs that disprove the notion that music in the 1970's sucked. In fact, some of the greatest music ever recorded made it out of giant record companies in those days, partly because they were flush with cash and could invest time and money in such a variety and still see a return on investment.

The best love songs weren't the "power ballads" of the 1980's. The best love songs came earlier, and most of them were soul ballads. The stupid, bland "Adult Contemporary" sound is an attempt to make a formula out of what is really a hit-or-miss proposition. They don't make songs like this anymore, and that's OK, because this song is already out there, and it's perfect for dancing slow, or other, more private moments. This is the Manhattan's with "Shining Star":

It Isn't Nothing, But I Don't Have Much

The President had a news conference today. I think his approval ratings dropped while the ten people who watched it paid attention. Why does the press even cover this joker anymore? Seriously. If we ignore him, maybe he'll take the rest of his Presidency off, staying down in Crawford and looking over his poll numbers from 2002.

An old "joke" of McCain's surfaced today.

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, “Where is that marvelous ape?”

What a despicable human being. If this is the best the Republican's can do, I do hope they are ready for a beating. If Obama doesn't win at least 35 states and have a margin of at least 75 electoral votes, I will consider it a McCain victory.

Finally, John Boehner managed to prove how stupid he is, and by extension most conservatives. Eight years ago, we were told "the adults" would be in charge when the Republicans went on to victory. These aren't adults, but emotionally stunted child-men and -women, who feel quite free to just get up and say and do whatever they want without any remorse, without any sense of decency, without any need to worry about accountability for their actions. Only children act that way.

Rant over.

Music Monday

Ask and you shall receive (except for "La Vida Loca" and Sheryl Crowe, so sorry). First up is DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince before Will Smith tried acting, with "Summertime":

I always liked Toad the West Sprocket. Just the band's name was pretty cool (even more cool that Hootie and the Blow Fish). I liked their melancholy songs. I guess I just gravitate to that kind of thing. My only problem was they were lumped with the whole phony "alternative rock" thing in the early and mid 1990's, and they weren't at all. I like this song because it traces the deterioration of a relationship in a realistic way. The man is mourning the fact that his lover and he just cannot connect, "Something's always wrong," even though he can't see it. It's a very sad song, in many ways, because it tells a real story, rather than relying on cliches. I especially like the image of the guy beating himself with a "penance rope". How many of us have flagellated ourselves needlessly? This song is a good antidote to romanticism.

I liked Smashmouth until I saw them on Letterman at some point. I realized watching them they couldn't do it live. But, there's just something fun about their music, especially this song that is all retro late-60's psychedlia (the organ and guitar remind me of Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky"):

Next week I would like to do something completely different - recent or contemporary performers of classical music (no, I do not mean Sarah Brightman, although her CD covers are hot). Glenn Gould is an obvious choice, as is Yo-yo Ma, so I would like to avoid them if at all possible (although Gould's cocaine-soaked rendition of Bach is wonderful). Choral groups and directors (except for Leonard Bernstein) are also acceptable because, especially the latter, are interpreters in their own right. Any Rostropovich fans out there?

John 8: 12-19

Lisa's latest sermon series in on the "I Am" statements of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. As these are directly related to the proclamation of the name of the LORD in Exodus ("I am who I am, or I will be who I will be"), there is a radical association of Jesus and the God of Israel in these statements, even as Jesus is distancing and dissociating himself from Pharisaical interpretations of who this God is. Lisa used this passage, in which Jesus proclaimed himself "the light of the world", and John 15, where Jesus proclaimed himself "the true vine". She preached on the latter image, but it is the former one of which I wish to speak. The exchange with the Pharisees here is interesting. First, from the Revised English Bible (oh, those nutty Brits and their translations!), here is John 8: 12-19:

Once again Jesus addressed the people: "I am the light of the world. No follower of mine shall walk in darkness; he shall have the light of life." The Pharisees said to him, "You are witness in your own cause; your testimony is not valid." Jesus replied, "My testimony is valid, even though I do testify on my own behalf; because I know where I come from, and where I am going. But you know neither where I come from nor where I am going. You judge by worldly standards; I pass judgment on no one. If I do judge, my judgment is valid because it is not I alone who judge, but I and he who sent me. In your own law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is valid. I am a witness in my own cause, and my other witness is the Father who sent me." "Where is your father?" they asked him. Jesus replied, "You do not know me or my Father; if you knew me your would know my Father too."

One thing to note here is how Jesus creates distance between himself and his Jewish milieu, by referring to "your own law". There is, in the Fourth Gospel, this distancing between Jesus and the Jews, and it most likely resides in early (Gentile) Christian anti-Jewish feeling (I refuse to use that anachronistic term "anti-Semitism" here). Without surrendering to such prejudice, nonetheless, I think we can use this distancing in a less problematic fashion, perhaps. That is to say that Jesus is here not so much separating himself from his own Jewish roots so much as he is offering to the Pharisees a dose of their own medicine; they are quick to paint themselves as the true interpreters of God's law, and on this basis call Jesus and his life and ministry in to question. Jesus here is turning the tables on them.

To that end, it is important to realize that the Pharisees do not take the time to deal with what Jesus has to say. They become nit-picking lawyers, claiming that his testimony is out-of-bounds because he is doing so on his own behalf. Jesus does a double-whammy on them, first, by saying that they are judging based on "human standards" when in fact they are using the Mosaic code, which is supposed to be God's law. Further, he says that he does not judge, even as they are judging him.

How often do we get all caught up in discussions that hinge on how others insist our words are to be interpreted? How often do we hear people say they were "misquoted" or "misunderstood"? Jesus here is showing how to deal with these problems. Simply throw it back on those who would try to go all "meta" on us, telling us how wrong we are. Jesus does not defend his words in some kind of reasoned argument. Rather, he say, in effect, "Your criticism is illegitimate because you do not understand what I am saying. If you understood, you wouldn't be all critical. Your criticism is evidence of your willing ignorance."

I like this. I like Jesus showing how to ignore an argument started by others by saying, "Homey don't play that way." He is telling the Pharisees their rules no longer govern the way human beings are to live in relation to God. He is offering people the possibility of getting beyond legal nit-picking and the trap of literal belief. By telling people that, in following him, Jesus is offering them a light to freedom, a light that will never be extinguished, he is telling people that his, rather than the authority of others, even of the tradition of which he is himself a part, is the way God wants people to live. By arguing with Jesus over the whole issue of the legitimacy of his own words, the Pharisees indict themselves, hoist on the petard not of their own, but Jesus' words.