Dear Fred,
A recent post by Laura Wood is titled
"The United States of Homosexual Imperialism." http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2011/10/the-united-states-of-homosexual-imperialism/#more-29763
Loss of perspective, perhaps?
It is apropos to recall the 19th century practice of
advocating slavery from the pulpit - complete with bible-based justifications.
The salient difference between
"then" and "now" is that, in the case of slavery, The Bible
Belt's routine pigheadedness finally got its nose rubbed so brusquely in its
own ideological crap that it was no longer possible to boast its lack of moral
potty training.
I think it safe to say that Laura would
argue a categorical difference between supporting abolition and supporting
homosexual civil rights. (Or would she?)
Notably, Y'eshua makes NO reference to
homosexuality. (Similarly, the Bible makes no reference to abortion. Not a
single word.)
It beggars imagination that the "two
red button issues" in American conservative politics are homosexuality and
abortion.
The current generation of Pharisees ought
concentrate on what Y'eshua actually said before howling the "existential
importance" of what he did not say.
Here, for example, is what Y'eshua
actually says about divorce - as set forth in the earliest of the four
canonical gospels:
1 Jesus
then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan.
Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught
them. 2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by
asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 “What
did Moses command you?” he replied. 4 They
said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her
away.” 5 “It was because your hearts were hard that
Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But
at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For
this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and
the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they
are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what
God has joined together, let no one separate.” 10 When
they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He
answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits
adultery against her.12 And if she divorces her husband
and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
The core contradiction whereby
conservative Christians focus what Jesus did NOT say while essentially ignoring
what he did say, is set against a backdrop in which Evangelicals,
Fundamentalists and Baptists are significantly more likely to divorce than
atheists and agnostics - http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/137829/evangelicals_why_do_we_have_the_highest.html
In this same Marcan passage, note
Y'eshua's belief in "moral relativism" - his casual observation
that Moses' lax moral standard hinged on the "circumstance" of
hard-heartedness. (Shades of "situational ethics.")
Moses - the great promulgator of Law - deliberately
promotes legal laxity because his fellow Jews were dense. If "the
people" can not live up to a high moral standard, then, by God, hold them
to a low one.
And Y'eshua approves.
I venture that Laura and her conservative
friends beat up on the presumed "immorality" of "gays and
lesbians" because their presumption of self-righteousness leaves no
alternative but projecting their own moral shortcomings onto "the
other."
And what better way to beat up on
"the other" than to attack the smallest of all social groups.
Hypocritical presumption is so widespread
among America's conservative "Christians" that - after years of
listening to their rants about the rest of us "going to hell" -- I
would venture that, when they themselves arrive at "The Pearly
Gates," more unpleasant surprises will await "The Saved!" than
await prostitutes, wine tipplers and traitorous tax collectors - those despised
turncoats employed by the pagan occupiers, a military force whose leaders used
those taxes to destroy The Temple and to scatter the Jewish people to the four
winds.
If my surmise is correct, a
disproportionate number of these Pearly Gate "surprises" will be due
to the zeal with which American Christians have supported war - and more
recently, torture.
If I recall correctly, Laura is a firm
believer that "men" should make every "belligerent"
decision.
My counsel to "The Saved!" is
that they are highly unlikely to be exempted from moral responsibly just
because they refused participation in political process. Silence is consent.
In fact, I think it likely that their
refusal makes them more responsible for the bad decisions made by
"men" stupidly deprived of the integral wisdom that would have
obtained if everyone -- men and women alike -- were fully conscious
participants in every political process.
The decades-long scenario described by
Marine Commandant, Major General Smedley Butler portrays an incalculable
collective evil whose moral impact redounds to anyone who -- for whatever
reason -- deliberately refuses to participate in decisions of "war and
peace."
To quote the Marine who -- during his
lifetime -- was the most decorated jarhead ever: "War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I
believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only
a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of
the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense
at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then
we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6
percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent.
Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I
wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the
bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of
our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is
simply a racket. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the
military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out
enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain
men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss"
Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military man to
adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three
years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's
most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks
from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most
of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and
for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I
suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like
all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own
until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation
while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the
military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for
American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for
the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of
half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The
record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name
before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar
interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its
way unmolested.
During those years, I
had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on
it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do
was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933.
U.S. Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler, who, following retirement
from the military, ran for the Senate as a Pennsylvania Republican.
The entire text of
"War is a Racket" is freely available at http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Smedley Butler's
Wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
Note that the first two
evil-doers identified by General Butler are "Big Business" and
"Wall Street."
What has changed...
other than the Military-Industrial Complex's tightened grip? http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/
By my lights, the "Great
Refusal" to fully participate in political process imposes even greater
burden of moral responsibility on those who did not inform themselves
sufficiently to actively oppose the moral monstrosities of Vietnam, Iraq,
etcetera.
Resistance to Uncle Sam's decerebrate
villainy in Iraq did not require but a handful of functioning synapses. I
cannot believe that American Christians are as addlepated and/or witless as
they (repeatedly) seem - http://www.cjd.org/paper/benedict.html
Laura rails against “Homosexual
Imperialism.”
But has she ever railed against real American Imperialism? The kind of
imperialism that ignites holocausts - 3,000,000 in Vietnam and a hundred
thousand in Iraq.
There is dire discrepancy between Ms.
Wood’s chosen political "targets" and the political issues she cannot
even look at.
This political bifurcation -- coming down
on the side of gay baiters and gay bashers -- does not befit someone with
Laura's intellectual gifts.
It does not take a “Christian” Scientist
to know that the fusion of "Christianity" and Nationalism is a
dangerous brew.
When mixed, murder and mayhem follow.
With the certainty of tides, Christian
Nationalism kills.
Kills real people. Lots of them.
Women and children.
Laura "must" know that humans are
fallen creatures – all of us -- and that it is immodest, perhaps even obscene,
that she encourages her readers to persist in “Christian” superiority - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=obscene
Self-congratulation and correlative
obsession with the sins of others is the surest way to disown “the wo/man in
the mirror."
Laura would do well to read Merton's late
life diary, "Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander."
Or, if not the book, just the title.
(I'm surprised - and pleased - to see
"Guilty Bystander" freely available online - http://books.google.com/books/about/Conjectures_of_a_guilty_bystander.html?id=vqJuu168cxYC)"
In recent time, Laura has taken to
denigrating Benedict XVI, representing him as an Islamic accomodationist eager
to cede Europe to the Moors gathered “at the Gates of Vienna.”
Is Laura aware that American Islamics are
remarkably straight-laced people, much more prone to vote Republican than
Democratic (at least prior to Smirk and
Snarl's Crusade).
(I do not follow Laura as closely as
you. Have you noticed any signs of instability?
But back to the issue of homosexuality...
I have long thought that "the
apostle whom Jesus loved" reveals a relationship with "a certain
connotation" which in recent years has made me ponder the significance of
Y'eshua's remarkable statement, “I have
many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:12&version=NASB
If Y'eshua had -- in any way -- sided
with homosexuality, he would have been assassinated at once, and, in
consequence, his more central message would have been eradicated.
I encourage all Christians to imagine at
least one thing that Y'eshua could not have told his apostles because they
could not "bear it."
Then, when they conjure one such
"unbearable thing," recall that Y'eshua had "many more unbearable things" to tell us.
The best is enemy of the good.
The profoundest truths are paradoxical.
The last shall be first.
And "The Saved" shall be...
Pax on both houses,
Alan
PS What do you think? Would Laura have
the courage to post this on "Thinking Housewife?"
PPS Perhaps Laura does not participate in
political process because her partisans are such a “dubious” lot. Rather than
look at them squarely, she hides in her blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment