The Sickly Smell of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ estate real

does the pope still have his tatoo or was he not considered worthy of such consideration?

They should not deny their sexuality nor should they denounce it nor should they be forced to proclaim or defend their persuasion. Their gender is theirs and our gender is ours neither can challenge the other in a democracy where equality is for all. Some Christian factions are brutal and in traditional manner true to their faith they seek to sacrifice to atone for their sins and there are no exceptions through out society. It is best to allow people what they want without wrong to have and be what they want and leave the rest of us who have been wronged to do what we can to survive if we are less equal than others.

jekyle

http://estadium.ya.com/prjkd/ sex toys

Still not sure what you're trying to say here, Jihadist, in terms of seating at dinner parties...

It certainly seems a trivial thing to fuss about, especially if you're trying to say it justifies anti-gay agendas.

" Jihadist:

"I was not kidding about that seating arrangements or houseguest "fuss" when gays are invited to a home. A banker's wife in New York told me after dinner, over coffee and very discreetly, in pointing out the gay couple who were her guests."

Well, yes, these 'society' rules were certainly made to reinforce heterosexuality: Poor dears looking for enough divorced or single people to seat gay *couples* with shows a lot of bias right there, ....A gay couple isn't a couple like the straights.

As for the idea that gay houseguests are going to have loud sex when straights presumably wouldn't... That's just offensive, and again shows people being reduced to sex acts, and, apparently, ideas they're so sexually-compulsive that they'd *want* to have sex on someone else's bedsheets with kids in the next room. I mean, Gods, if anything, that shows how much the anti-gay propaganda *dehumanizes* people.

My own folks would separate me and a partner of whatever sex if we were unmarried, and my sweetie's folks, who think we're both really great people who will suffer eternally under the worst torture imaginable, put us together.

"You have no idea how some society hostess do fuss about everything and nothing to make sure their formal dinner parties are "just so". I never realised she was quite stressed, but never shows it. It was almost as if she was relieved in telling me that."

I was a wedding photographer. Yes, I know well.
"Just so" doesn't mean it's sane to pretend the whole world is straight. I mean, if someone's gonna bust a cork cause of something like that, they have worse problems than gay couples existing.

It's pretty simple. Seat couples together. If someone's thinking, "How can I ruin a really expensive occasion where I'm supposed to be the hostess by spooling myself up about my fragile sensibilities," ...They're missing the point, anyway.

Personally, I'm always more concerned about not having anything *nice enough to wear* to things remotely resembling that: or if I'll be in little enough pain not to be grimacing at people like it's the company I find painful: ... these things you describe are 'rich people problems.'

Occasions like that, anyone that wants to find a reason to be uncomfortable is gonna find one, whether or not you freak out about things seeming 'Not 100 percent straight and Christian Or Jewish!' People that are there to have a good time will also find a way.

"Her dinner party was just great. She's just being a very good, correct and accomodative hostess to her guests - making sure everyone is comfortable and everything was right. I felt quite bad telling her no pork products for me at her dinner. She accomodated my needs. In fact, she served us all lamb and plaice as meat and fish courses."

Gotta go with the lamb. :)

My impression is that pork's kind of hard for caterers to get right, anyway. These days, everyone's on crazy diets, particularly the rich, so that hardly seems a big deal. Actually, I know a lot of Pagan homesteaders, and there's apparently a good market for sheep for certain Muslim feasts involving 'sacrifice' (as in killing to cook with respect) of a sheep. Some customers seem to appreciate the not-freaking-out about that, apart from questions, "You know how to do this with respect and without cruelty, yes?"

People tend to freak out about ...things from farming if there isn't some Saran Wrap as an intermediary, honestly. :)

But, for me, well, there's some animals I won't eat, and some that I'll only eat if I know they were killed and/or raised with respect. There's usually an option to the commercial veal or farmed venison. :)

"Makes me seriously think about the such "social" adjusments we so called "straights" are making to accomodate gays who are our family, friends ansd colleagues. Minor they may be, but important for all in terms of acceptance and accepting of gays."

I think, it's not as hard an adjustment to make as it can be cracked-up to be. When the idea of 'propriety' is so rarefied that gay (or Muslim) people being around constitutes a *crisis,* then it's time to look at what's supposed to be important about these little rituals in the first place. :)

Frankly, a lot of them were originally *meant* to exclude people of certain types from the little artificial world all the place settings and arrangements and dress codes were *intended* to reinforce.

In America, things that are 'classy' have taken on a bit of a more socially-mobile concept... they've become competitions, rather than entitlements and obligations, even if the meaning of them is forgotten.

It's not a particularly noble meaning in the first place. It's expensive. It can be expensive fun, or expensive *not-fun.*

That's up to those who do it.

Not 'us queers.'

Unfortunately, the current US military seems to have forgotten the Constitution and WELDED itself to the Church.

As I read the excerpts of Teresa's letters in Van Biema's article in Time Magazine, I felt only compassion and regret for one who had labored for decades in the slums of Calcutta. And I'm deeply disappointed in her church's decision to violate her obvious trust in her confessors and superiors. For more of my thoughts on Teresa's loss of faith, see the 8/28/07 post on my blog at http://katalusis.blogspot.com/

As I read the excerpts of Teresa's letters in Van Biema's article in Time Magazine, I felt only compassion and regret for one who had labored for decades in the slums of Calcutta. And I'm deeply disappointed in her church's decision to violate her obvious trust in her confessors and superiors. For more of my thoughts on Teresa's loss of faith, see the 8/28/07 post on my blog at http://katalusis.blogspot.com/

Ryan,

Your reasoning and theology fails many tests:

1 Cor 7: 32-34 as per Professor JD Crossan in his book In Search of Paul, p.111: St. Paul was not interested in marriage because he assummed the second coming was imminent. Fortunately for us, he was wrong.

Matt 19: 12 " For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

Not the way to go in my opinion and not a good reference for promoting celibacy.

Definition of a eunuch:

1. A castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts.
2. A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed.
3. Informal. An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man.

And the Last Supper? It was not an historic event. See http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/016_Supper_and_Eucharist

An excerpt:

"At the same time, Luedemann concludes that the portrayal of Jesus celebrating such a ritual on the night before his death is not historical. He is clear that there is "no generic relationship" between any actual final meal and the Lord's Supper understood in cultic terms. He also denies the Passover character of the supper as a Markan creation. Like Meier (below), Luedemann does accept the saying (Mark 14:25) about drinking wine in the kingdom of God as authentic. He concludes: (this saying) "hardly came into being in the early community, for in it Jesus does not exercise any special function for believers at the festal meal in heaven which is imminent. Only Jesus' expectation of a the future kingdom of God stands at the centre, not Jesus as saviour, judge or intercessor."

What do many contemporary, religious historians conclude about the historic reliability of said Catholic foundations:

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20

Since Father Edward Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani (sp?)
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”

more “logic”?
“I believe there is One God Jehovah because He is revealed in the infallible
Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible because it is the Word of the One God Jehovah.”

Again, this what some leading experts are saying about the foundations of Catholicism. As I have noted before, I find it disturbing that the Vatican remains silent concerning the conclusions of these experts. But hey, they are still clinging to Limbo so one cannot expect much with respect to coming to grips with the reality of history.

That was me with the anonymous post at 11:10 a.m.

Ryan:

You're right - your reasons don't make sense to me.

**(1) Jesus Christ, in instituting the Eucharist at the Last Supper, the constitutive act of the priesthood, was in the company of the twelve apostles alone - perhaps the only time when their weren't women with him.**

Seems to me that if you were going to use that as a reason to exclude women from anything, it would be from receiving the Eucharist. (Not that I think that would be a good idea.)

**(1) Within the Godhead, God the Father gives everything to the Son, who receives and returns it to the Father. They themselves both give totally to the Holy Spirit, who receives and returns it to the Father.
(3) Christ gives his whole self to the Church, who then receives and reciprocates to Him.**

Looking at your earlier analogy of the wheat, this makes Jesus a spiritual hermaphrodite.

**(1) Inducting women into ministry has not saved any of the mainline denominations from very serious clergy shortages of their own. There is no reason to suspect it would save the Catholic Church from hers.**

I don't recall contending that it would solve a shortage problem, only thay exclusion based on number of X chromosomes was illogical. Perhaps the reason for fewer semnarians across the ecumenial board is dissatisfaction with organized religion in general.

**(1) Church clergymen's children were inheriting church property.**

So make a clear, legal, written, notarized account of what constitutes church property. Then if an unscrupulous clergyperson tries to will it to his or her children, the church has grounds to contest the will.

**(1) Both St. Paul and Our Lord commend voluntary celibacy to disciples that would follow Jesus especially, St. Paul because celibacy leaves one undivided, Jesus himself by assuring those who freely forego a family that they will be greatly rewarded in heaven.**

My reading of Paul was that he didn't want people wasting time taking care of families becausehe thought Jesus was going to return within his lifetime. And he had no love for women in general.

**(1) An unmarried man is free from concerns about wife and children to give himself entirely and exclusively to his parish as Christ to the Church, even, should it prove necessary (it has in the past on numerous occasions) to the point of giving his life.**

I will admit that it takes a very special woman to be able to stay married to a clergyman. I couldn't do it. But then again, I couldn't be married to a policeman either. But I've known women who can and do.

As for dinner, sure, come on over any time you're in town. You may even be fiond yourself breaking with a lesbian ordained minister and her wife if they happen to also be in town.

Arminius,

"You are right that the existence of the Deity cannot be proven by any empirical methods. It is in the heart. I believe that God IS, and is with me. Can I prove it? No."

I recognize the importance of your personal experience to you. My point is that your experience has nothing to do with the universe or with the meaning of anyone else's life. A belief in God is a belief about the universe, especially when the belief includes the notion that the God has universal authority over humans. Questions about the universe are the realm of empirical science. I have met a few people who have experiences similar to yours but who refrain from framing these in universal terms. Instead, they find meaning in these for only their own lives.

Lepidopteryx,

That sounds exactly like how I serve dinner! It sounds great. And if it's an invitation, I happily accept! :)

(I NEVER use emoticons, but I couldn't help myself)

Lepidopteryx:

***Ok, you've piqued my curiosity. What are the reasons?***

Sure. You might not like the principles, or think they are true, or even reasonable, but here goes.

--------------------
Male-only Priesthood
--------------------
These reasons are entirely based on principle, as becomes starkly clear given the Church's complete refusal to engage the question of ordaining women contrary to all obvious benefit.

(1) Jesus Christ, in instituting the Eucharist at the Last Supper, the constitutive act of the priesthood, was in the company of the twelve apostles alone - perhaps the only time when their weren't women with him.
(a) It does no good speaking of social conventions regarding women, because Jesus routinely shocked his followers (including the apostles) by flouting all such conventions. In Catholic belief, remember, the most exalted (non-divine) human ever to exist is the Blessed Virgin Mary, a woman. Also, in all gospel accounts, the first person to discover the resurrection and to tell others the good news, was Mary Magdalene, also a woman. Hardly pittling roles.
(b) It does no good saying that letter editors removed references to women at the Last Supper, when such editors presumably left any number of references to women in their places. Jesus talked with prostitutes, rebuked town leaders in favor of captured adultresses, received hospitality from women. He "bothered" to teach single women (which no self-respecting Jew, or pagan for that matter, of Jesus' day would have "wasted time" doing).
(c) At the Last Supper, right when you'ld expect a sexist man to want women around (cooking), the accounts are all explicit that the apostles handled all the arrangements for what became the institution of the Eucharist, the central priestly act... even though just a month or so later, the apostles would all gather in prayer in the same room, together with Mary and other women, praying for the Holy Spirit (the act most fundamental to all the baptized faithful).

(2) Aside from that very big (and primary) reason, there is the philosophical observation of complementarity and the theological concept of iconography.
(a) Masculinity and femininity are concepts both relative to each other, Foucault's 'binaries pairs' if you will, though in human life they don't play out that way. The West isn't the only place where this concept arises. The Chinese call it Yin and Yang. The Persians encased it in their Zoroastrianism. In fact, it appears in some form or another in almost every religion. It's fundamental even to agricultural life - the farmer inseminates (say with wheat seeds) and the earth reciprocates by yielding fruit (30, 50, and 100-fold the number of seeds). Masculinity is principle of initiative and insemination; femininity of receptivity and reciprocation. Combined, the two bear a LOT of fruit. (It is a terrible thing when masculinity degrades into machismo, or when femininity is degraded into frilliness.)
(b) The Catholic Church sees this yin-yang (though not in those words) principle being played out everywhere:
(1) Within the Godhead, God the Father gives everything to the Son, who receives and returns it to the Father. They themselves both give totally to the Holy Spirit, who receives and returns it to the Father.
(2) God gives everything (including His Son and His Holy Spirit) to his creation in an act of love, hoping, longing only to receive love in return.
(3) Christ gives his whole self to the Church, who then receives and reciprocates to Him.
(4) Within the Church, the clergy are to give themselves entirely to the laity, who then receive and reciprocate.
(5) In marriages, the husband is to give his entire self to his wife, who is to receive and reciprocate.
(6) In families, the parents give their whole selves to their children, who then receive and reciprocate.
(c) The iconographic principle is that invisible realities are made more present to us when they are made more present to our senses. This yin-yang complementarity is real, and is made more manifest by making it more visible. A man at the head of the congregation makes more visible Christ's masculinity (with respect to the Church, which St. Paul calls His Bride) than a woman does.

practical reason:
(1) Inducting women into ministry has not saved any of the mainline denominations from very serious clergy shortages of their own. There is no reason to suspect it would save the Catholic Church from hers.

principled reasons, additional:
(1) The Catholic Church cannot save herself. She knows this. She's (we're) a wreck. The outside world doesn't know the half of it. That's why we don't try to save ourselves (sometimes we even shoot ourselves in the foot, for some reason I can't quite understand).

We await in joyful hope for the coming of our Lord Jesus to save us.

We're also saddened that we don't do a better job of making that clear in how we live our day-to-day lives.

--------
Celibacy
--------
It is at first, and primarily practical; as often happens, principles arise from practice.

practical:
(1) Church clergymen's children were inheriting church property.
(2) Unmarried men are more free from obligation and constraint, thus have more time, mobility, and ability to take risks.
(note) Selecting clergy from men who have already promised celibacy is not essential to the priesthood - but useful to it, good for it, and for the Church. The Catholic Church in Eastern countries does permit the ordination of married men. The marriage of already ordained men has never been permitted (following St. Paul's injunction that clergy should have been married once at most).

theological principles:
(1) Both St. Paul and Our Lord commend voluntary celibacy to disciples that would follow Jesus especially, St. Paul because celibacy leaves one undivided, Jesus himself by assuring those who freely forego a family that they will be greatly rewarded in heaven.

theological principles that arose from the above:
(1) An unmarried man is free from concerns about wife and children to give himself entirely and exclusively to his parish as Christ to the Church, even, should it prove necessary (it has in the past on numerous occasions) to the point of giving his life. Is it a humanly impossible ideal? Absolutely. Priests who try on their own are sunk before they've begun; but with God's help anything is possible.

---

Those are the basic practical and principled reasons for the church's stubborn maintenance of a male-only priesthood consisting primarily of celibates.

Didn't say you'ld follow them, or agree with them - but only that we have them.

Concerned the Christian:

'From these hallucinations, came one of the most violent religions humankind has ever seen as evidenced by the Third Axis of Evil aka Iran and the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia and the following contemporary acts of terror in general supported by Iran and the "Wannabees" financially and "theologically" with the blood money of oil profits:

the arson/terror acts of seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the UK train bombings, the train bombings in Spain, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.'

Actually the most violent religion humankind has ever seen is the version of Christianity practiced by our Moron In Chief and as influenced by the Jewish led neocons and the Israeli lobbyists, who misled us into Iraq and continues to support its occupation and that of Palestine.

Victoria has it right. Islam is basically a peace loving religion, but does reserve the right to defend itself.

Compared to the hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslim women and children slaughtered by the Butcher of Washington with his super powered war machine, and the millions of Palestinian and Iraqi families forced into concentration camps in neighboring countries, the Muslim backed terror that you cite is trifling and more than justified.

Surely your above mentioned oil fields could not be motivating the actions of our beloved Shrub and his puppeteers.

Ryan,

In our diocese, most of the baptisms are done by married deacons. These deacons also give sermons and assist at Mass. And our parish priests are hardly stressed since as you noted there are significantly fewer attending Mass these days. And most of these parish priests have never given a decent sermon again reinforcing my conclusion that most priests are not the "cream of the male crop".

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:

Your data is accurate but skewed because of neglect of a very significant detail. Half of those describing themselves Catholic do not attend Mass but 1-4 times annually, and are in effect making no contribution to the life of the Church - certainly they are not going off to seminary.

In the U.S. there are more priests per practicing Catholic now than at any time in American history.

One of the things that makes priests feel stress and burnout is that nonpracticing Catholics still want baptisms (usually), marriages (eventually), and funerals (almost always) which are fairly labor intensive for clergy and parish staff.

Jihadist,

The first thing is to try to step out of a certain Jerry Springer kind of mindset that has much of the English-speaking world enrapt. Not everything is everybody's business. In my mind, life is on much more of a need-to-know basis.

I'm afraid I cannot offer a single rule about "when to ask" or "when to tell" except perhaps as the information becomes relevant. Except for things that are really exciting us, that's how we handle most of what's going on in our brain anyway.

If the ELCA hasn't a problem ordaining practicing homosexuals, then it doesn't seem the sort of question they even need to ask. If the American people have determined that sexual proclivity is not a job qualification for public office, it again seems irrelevant. If the Boy Scouts have determined that men who engage in homosexual activity are not to lead their member organizations, then it seems a relevant question to ask, or important information to volunteer - simply as a matter of integrity, whether the Boy Scouts are right or wrong in so requiring.

To summarize, I think (as I said in my second post on this forum) that "Don't ask, don't tell" is hypocritical; now I add that it is also cowardly and unwise. I would rather, "Ask when relevant, speak with integrity".

J -

One thing I've never quite understood is the concept of telling folks which chair to sit in when you invite them over to dinner. People who worry too much abouot where each person sits tend to stress themselves to the point that they aren't able to enjoy their own parties. I tend to be much more informal.

If you come to my house for dinner, there will be pots and pans of food on the rangetop, with a stack of plates on the counter, and napkins and flatware on the table. You will load up your plate with as much as you want of whichever foods please you, and you will not be asked to eat anything you find unpalatable or otherwise offensive, nor will you be considered rude for your refusal of such foods. For my part, I will make every reasonable attempt to ensure that there is something available for everyone - I will not serve pork as an entree if I have invited Muslim or Jewish friends over, and I always have lots of vegetable dishes, so you will not go hungry or be forced to fill up on potatoes if you eschew meat.
There will be beer and wine for those who like them, and I always have tea, milk, and juice in the fridge. If you have special beverage preferences, I will not object in the slightest if you bring your own.
You will carry your plate to the table, sit in the chair that most appeals to your bottom, and hopeflly we will all enjoy food and fellowship.

Islamist,

"pwtffts"= "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie"s aka angels such as your/our Gabriel which by Islamic koranic law you have to believe in. (The Mormons have a similar flaw in their religious foundation as they are required to believe in the "pwtfft" aka "a raised personage" called Moroni.)

Which brings us to The Jihadist and other like "liberal" Muslims. They refuse to accept the reality of history i.e. Big Mo was a "holie hallucinator" as he supposedly saw visions of a "pwtfft" aka Gabriel. From these hallucinations, came one of the most violent religions humankind has ever seen as evidenced by the Third Axis of Evil aka Iran and the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia and the following contemporary acts of terror in general supported by Iran and the "Wannabees" financially and "theologically" with the blood money of oil profits:

the arson/terror acts of seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the UK train bombings, the train bombings in Spain, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.

Instead of accepting the reality of history and demanding a deletion of Big Mo and his scribes' koranic militaristic agenda , The Jihadist and her ilk continue an almost 24/7 "wishy wash" with verbage about other religions, other life styles and other economic and government institutions while Islam continues to bring us closer to a world war.

It is important that we continue to remind The Jihadist and her ilk of the seriousness of the situation. This will continue until we see an acceptance of reality and a condemnation of the actions of Iran and the "Wannabees".

One hopes and prays that you will be teaching the Muslim orphans love and respect for all of humankind and not hatred for all things not associated with your "holie hallucinator".

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

What is "pwtffts"? Is there something I should know on what is really going on between you and Jihadist? It looks really personal with you. Better for you to be involved in something like my new project, a hostel and school for orphans?

Cheers

David,

A mission being slowly accomplished as those "pwtffts" are slowly being deleted from our brainwashed minds. Let the healing continue in joy and gladness!!!! "Free at last, Free at last!!!"

Concerned,

You know, your posts have gotten so predictable that you can actual abbreviate your rhetoric and we all know what your talking about "pwtffts".

It's getting sad.

There she is again, The Jihadist making commentary about some "not so important" issues especially in comparison to the flaws in the foundations of Islam, flaws that continue to threaten the world. When might we expect her condemnation of the Third Axis of Evil, aka Iran? When can we expect her acceptance that Mohammed was a illiterate, hallucinating warmonger bent on plundering and pillaging the lands of the infidels? When can we expect The Jihadist to finally admit Gabriel and the other "pwtffts" never existed??

Probably not until the Islamic oil wells run dry and there is no longer any oil profits to invest in Islamic propaganda and terror!!!!

Senator Larry ("Footsie") Craig believes in the literal truth of the Holy Bible. That didn't stop him from lewd behavior near the fetid floor of an airport men's room, aiming for a quick trick with some passerby. Believing in the Bible's literal truth didn't stop Craig from hollering about "family values" while he cheated and lied and lived a secret life as a pederast. Believing in the Bible's literal truth may be overrated. But Jesus got one thing right: See Matthew 25 about 'whited sepulchers" and how hypocrisy is a serious sin. Then contemplate the life of Footsie Craig, menace of the men's room and Lothario of the lavatory.

Paganplace

I was not kidding about that seating arrangements or houseguest "fuss" when gays are invited to a home. A banker's wife in New York told me after dinner, over coffee and very discreetly, in pointing out the gay couple who were her guests.

You have no idea how some society hostess do fuss about everything and nothing to make sure their formal dinner parties are "just so". I never realised she was quite stressed, but never shows it. It was almost as if she was relieved in telling me that.

Her dinner party was just great. She's just being a very good, correct and accomodative hostess to her guests - making sure everyone is comfortable and everything was right. I felt quite bad telling her no pork products for me at her dinner. She accomodated my needs. In fact, she served us all lamb and plaice as meat and fish courses.

Makes me seriously think about the such "social" adjusments we so called "straights" are making to accomodate gays who are our family, friends ansd colleagues. Minor they may be, but important for all in terms of acceptance and accepting of gays.

Best regards as ever.
J

I'm still kind of flabbergasted, here, about the place settings, Jihadist, not that my partner and I are of the Great Gatsby set or anything...

It's like saying, "If we have interracial marriages, how do we seat them at the segregated lunch counter?"

There she is again, The Jihadist making commentary about some "not so important" issues especially in comparison to the flaws in the foundations of Islam, flaws that continue to threaten the world. When might we expect her condemnation of the Third Axis of Evil, aka Iran? When can we expect her acceptance that Mohammed was a illiterate, hallucinating warmonger bent on plundering and pillaging the lands of the infidels? When can we expect The Jihadist to finally admit Gabriel and the other "pwtffts" never existed??

Probably not until the Islamic oil wells run dry and there is no longer any oil profits to invest in Islamic propaganda and terror!!!!

Umm, Btw, J (hello, by the way:)

What's this? Are you joking?

"Gay couples do make hosts scramble a wee bit when inviting them for formal dinner parties."

Umm... *gasp.* Poor dears. What will they ever do? I'll go ahead and become straight right now: wouldn't want to mess up the place settings or nothing.

"The host would have to find single/divorced males or females to balance out gender representation and ensure the seating arrangements are well interspede and balanced with male, female, male, female."

Or.... they could.... Not?

"As for gay houseguests, do they go by the same rules as non-gay couples? No excessively loud humpings to disturb and wake the host's children, other houseguests and servants? The host's house is his/her house. S/he has other people to think of and take care too."

Umm, again... Are you *joking,* here?

Hi Jihadist. Thanks for the claim that I'm a neo-Renaissance man. On the other hand, I could just be a dilettante, flitting from topic to topic like a generalist pollinator.

I rarely visit Cal Thomas or Colson's threads unless I want a good laugh. There is almost no point posting there, unless you purposefully want to rile someone up.

Regarding HL's link to Oliver Carre, I haven't had time to visit, but I will. Bernard Lewis reminds me of an academic who knows how things are and hasn't questioned his assumptions in years. Oooops. Bernard Lewis is an academic who doesn't knows how things are and hasn't questioned his assumptions in years! I think the last time I saw him was on Charlie Rose. He went on and on about how Arabs only recognize and respect strength and see compromise as weakness. His premise was that if the West was very strong, the Arabs would respect the U.S. and essentially role over. A nice hypothesis, thoroughly refuted. Arabs probably do respect strength, but only if it is continually reinforced.

I'm off to Strawberry Music Festival through Labor Day Weekend. No internet, so I won't be checking in until next Monday or Tuesday.

Cheers
Maurie

"PaganPlace,

"Well, I am replying. Let's try to keep communicating.

"The French Quarter was spared because it is the Crescent of the Crescent City, i.e., it is above sea level, shaped like a crescent. As to the fundamentalists rant, well, typical of those benighted pathetic people."

Well, of course... that only makes it stupid as *well* as mean-spirited and basically-psychopathic to call for the destruction of the city by storm and flood in order to get at what's literally on the high ground. ;)

Lepidopteryx

Thanks reminding on the other forms of "tell". I had only being going on actual verbal "tell".

Maurie Beck

Thanks for your post. Islamist is still in a state of shock over some posts in Cal Thomas's and Charles Colson's threads on this question. I told him he should have read the posts in the threads re Pat Robertson's death. Ma foi! Actually, he's busy with a new project. Will be back.

Are you sure you're not just a evolutionary biologist, but a neo-Rennaissance man with an interest, a hunger for knowledge for everything?

Better to be a happy and non-hypocrital non-believer full of wonder than a believer full of certainties and judgement of others. God knows how many of the latter I've met and have to deal with in my life.

The link by HL is useful and Olivier Carre do provide another perspective of one of the strains of thoughts going on about Islam and Muslims by Muslims and non Muslims. He's one of those who look at Islam and Muslims from the prism of Islam's history and sociology itself. Less error there, than say, Bernard Lewis.

I don't think atheism as espoused by such writers as Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, Hirsi Ali, Susan Jacoby, etc. is doomed.

At their best, they made really valid points about organised religions and blind belief in the "supernatural" or god/s, and spurious interpretations and abuses of belief in God for very human objectives and interests. I prefer to books by scientists such as Richard Dawkins than by the like of Christopher Hitchens.

Norrie Hoyt

Thanks for the uselful list of possible responses. I did made a swine of myself over your ham sandwish, being a bit pig-headed about it and hamming the matter up, and thus hogtied this question a bit.

Best regards as always
J

I noticed that Ryan never answered Lep's question about whether she and her husband or people who can not produce children should still have sex? Sex is a beautiful give and take between 2 people who love each other a bonding - and whether 2 people bond or just enjoy someone's body has nothing to do with procreation. Reminds me of every sperm is sacred - the Monty Python sketch and the Protestant couple - Her saying that they had sex twice and they had 2 children and him explaining that he could wear a condom.
I know of people who have left the Catholic church because of their biblical injunction that you should have as many children as God will allow you to have. It is just recently that many Evangelical churches have also decided that women should have as many children as God lets them have.
It is your choice or should be to have children or not. Some people just don't make good parents. They know this. Should they bring children into the world and then mistreat them? Some women are warned not to become pregnant because it is dangerous for them - should they never be allowed to find someone and marry - because they can not procreate?
I'm sorry Ryan, I can not support your thesis, but it is your thesis and you can use it in your family because in the end, you and your family are the only ones you should (or anyone should) be able to make decisions for - because you do not live anyone else's life.

Regarding don't ask don't tell. Larry Craig, Republican, conservative, family values Senator from Idaho, USA has just claimed he isn't gay after being busted for solicitation and lewd behavior in a public bathroom at Minneapolis Airport. Another religious hypocrite bites the dust. However, before we all get a warm glow over the outing of some right-winger's gay revelation (or denial thereof), it might be time for a little reflection on his pain.

Two years ago there was a Major from Spokane, Washington who had similar bonifides (Republican, family values, etc.) as Sen. Craig. When I first heard about him I laughed and thought, "Serves him right!" Then I saw a PBS Frontline documentary on him. The documentary made him human and cast him as a gay man in a time (1950's boyhood) when even acknowledging one's gayness was often impossible. The man obviously didn't even know what his sexual orientation was until his midlife crisis. Spokane had a recall and all his former friends and colleagues deserted him and he was forced from office. In the meantime he was no longer diatribing against godless gays. He died of cancer shortly after the recall.

Perhaps poor Senator Craig is going through a crisis similar to the former Spokane Mayor. Or, perhaps he is like the Former Reverend Ted Haggard, the methamphetamine, gay-prostitute-using preacher who used to talk with President Bush weekly, who claims he is now cured of his deviant behavior.

HL

Thanks for the post.

Jihadist,

If someone spontaneously and gratuitously tells you they're gay, these are useful reponses:

[1] "And..."
[2] "Yes?..."
[3] "Is there a reason you're telling me this?"
[4] "Do I know any of your partners?"
[5] "Are you inviting me to something?"
[6] "Holy Toledo!"
[7] "So was Michaelangelo."
[8] "I wish you were Pope!"
[9] "Why aren't you a Republican Congressperson?"
[10] Are you the pastor of a megachurch?"
[11] What do you like to do?"

I note that you listed a couple of these.

Regards.

Ryan,

Based on your previous commentary, you apparently were bred, born and brainwashed in the Catholic faith. Been there done that. If you want to escape to be a "Reality Catholic" read the books written by many of the top NT exegetes. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html. Note four of the NT scholars are On Faith panelists. Their work has been well researched and their conclusions "eye-opening".

With respect to the number of Catholic priests in the USA, see

Changes in the Priesthood in the U.S., 1965 to 2003- http://www.beliefnet.com/story/164/story_16491_1.html

U.S. Data 1965 1985 1995 2003
Diocesan priests 35,925 35,052 32,349 29,285
Religious priests 22,707 22,265 16,705 14,349
Total priests 58,632 57,317 49,054 43,634

vs Catholic 45.60 52.30 57.40 63.40
population in millions

Based on personal observation, the average age of priests in the USA is over 55 and most are not "top notch" speakers or thinkers. And based on a "lady in the know", over 10 % are homosexual.

And at least in our diocese, there are priests who are still being defrocked because of rather recent deviant behaviour.

J,
I think perhaps you're misinterpreting "tell" in this case.

Did I tell my employer "I'm straight." No. But I checked the box marked "Married" on my application and I could put my husband's name under "Spouse" when I signed up for health insurance coverage. That constitiutes an indirect "tell". Because my lesbian officemate's spouse is a woman, she cannot cover her under the family insurance plan. That's a "tell."

I have pictures of my husband and daughter on my desk at work. If someone asks who those lovely people are and I say "Thst's my husband and daughter," I have "told".
Why should my lesbian officemate not be able to say "That's my wife and daughter" when asked about the pictures on her desk without facing condemnation?

Mr. Ryan Haber

I read all your posts here with great interest. I will go back to one on - "Don't ask, don't tell."

So, let us have a few scenarios here:

You don't know someone is gay, and s/he tells you:

"I'm gay".

Some possible and/or improbable responses:

- Congratulations!

- Why are you telling me this?

- Does your parents/husband/wife/children/second cousin twice removed/employer know?

- How long have you been gay?

- When did you know, how do you know you are gay?

- Who's your partner and how long have you been together?

- What do you want from me?

- What do you want me to do about it?

- (Lost for words)

- (Not saying anything in case whatever comes out of one's mouth will be taken wrongly)

Ad hoc conclusion: When someone tells one something one don't know about someone, one tends to ask follow-up questions - You tell, I ask. Like someone saying s/he has an allergy in eating shrimps, or hates broccolis, or is vegetarian when there is no religious injunctions against being a carniverous, lusty meat eater of dead animals.

We can assume that a gay telling an employer that s/he's gay merely means that s/he;

- wants the same benefits as a straight person would have if married with or without children

- that there be no homophobic reactions in the workplace and to focus on what s/he does at the workplace rather than with whom and how in the bed.

Who can really remember, care or make a fuss that Michelangelo the artist, WH Auden the poet, and John Maynard Keynes the economist, are all gays over what they contribute to arts and social science?

Who cared to remember that Oscar Wilde was vilified, dragged to court and jailed for being gay and for having a relationship with a consenting adult until the said consenting adult have a pang of guilt or second thoughts on the relationship? Lord Alfred Douglas told on the nature of their relationship and it cost Oscar Wilde's reputation in his own time.

Gay couples do make hosts scramble a wee bit when inviting them for formal dinner parties. The host would have to find single/divorced males or females to balance out gender representation and ensure the seating arrangements are well interspede and balanced with male, female, male, female. No one really noticed during free seating buffet brunches, lunches and dinners.

As for gay houseguests, do they go by the same rules as non-gay couples? No excessively loud humpings to disturb and wake the host's children, other houseguests and servants? The host's house is his/her house. S/he has other people to think of and take care too.

And back to "don't ask, don't tell". It should, perhaps, also apply to both gays and non-gays not telling others, say, they have no sense of style. Telling someone, "Blue is so last year!" is never appreciated, no? Even when asked for an opinion and given as so?

So, when is it right to ask? When is it right to tell? To whom? Why? Prickly question, prickly response. Prying question, defensive/offensive response. Asking someone if s/he's gay is like walking in a landmine. Being told by someone s/he's gay, in some instances, is also like being hurled a verbal grenade for some - especially those who are bigoted and/or homophobic.

Thank you and best regards.
J

I have to agree. Growing up in Houston my family and I would make stops to New Orleans.. and I just remember trying to take everything in, not sure exactly how I knew at 10 or so that 'THIS' was life.. and not just what I'd experienced in Texas.

My thoughts go out to you Terra, Lep and all the others who are fighting for that life.. blessed be.

Bush is the biggest mistake this country has ever had.

Terra,

You brought me to tears. Such resplendent praise of such a wonderful city! I thought that more than the crap there survived. Is not Jackson Square OK? Is not the cathedral there? Are the blessed players of jazz there still, some of them? Is not fresh shrimp in the restaurants?

Damn that liar Shrub for abandoning that jewel of a city.

Yep...the French Quarter was spared...the Witch shops, the bars and girly shows were fine..it was the Churches that flooded and closed down. I do not think God had anything to do with it. Did She?

It was the lake on the low side that flooded, not the ole Missisip that flows by the Quarter.

terra

Ryan:

**Celibacy is required and women excluded from the priesthood for practical and principled reasons.**

Ok, you've piqued my curiosity. What are the reasons?

Arminius:

**Anybody with more than three neurons to string together knew that New Orleans was a goner if a hurricane hit it at the right angle.**

And therein lies the problem. He only has two, and they don't fire in sequence on days with a "y" in dhem.

Arminius,
I can not think of a finer compliment then to be said to have the soul of New Orleans. She is like a beautiful lady...older and worn, but you can still see the fine bones and the spark that made her the belle of all cities.

I came on vacation to Louisiana in 1991. My (then) boy friend brought me...we stayed a month. Came back a few months later, I found this land and bought it. Why? I visited New Orleans. I knew what I would see before I turned that corner. I knew the smell and feel of the air...the life of that city is amazing.

The kids tap dancing to a clarrinet on the side walk, a man playing a jazz guitar, City Park, Saint Louis Cathedral,Marie Lavoux voodoo shop, the fortunetellers lined up, playing a washboard with a spoon, gator on a stick,sipping Daquaries in the courtyard next to the fountain at Pat O'Brians...of course feeding pop corn to the pidgeons.
New Orleans was flooded after the storm had passed because the levees failed...and then it took a week of suffering and death for bush to get help to the city...I was learning a lesson watching those waters with the people on roof tops pleading for help. I saw Bush stand within the bright light provided by the Army with Saint Louis cathedralas a backdrop and make promises...did everyone know that all else was darkness? People were living with no water, no electric, no hope and no trust. And Bush stood there and promised that he would see that New Orleans was made right.

He's a lier.

New Orleans is so special, so unique that all the world would suffer a loss if the people and culture of New Orleans dissappeared. But it's a black city...a city of Southern Decadence, VooDoo Queens, Witch Shops,Horse drawn buggies, and white mules with top hated drivers, a streetcar named Desire,Steam boats, cobblestones, ghosts and tombs, congo square and antibellum homes...and the only folks who care are those who have been there...they know.

I don't know if I have the soul of New Orleans..but she has my heart.

terra

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

***Is it not also about the lack of interest in becoming a "clergyperson"? A good example is my Catholic Church. The number of men interested in the priesthood continues to plummet. The standards were therefore lowered, questions were not asked, celibacy was still required, women are still denied their rightful role and we are learning the lessons the hard way to the "tune" of a billion dollars so far.***

In point of fact, your statement is false. The number of seminarians DID plummet in the 1970s, stabilized in the 1980s-1990s, and has been steadily (if slowly) increasing since then. Moreover, if you will recall the bru-ha-ha that ensued the 2005 Apostolic Visitation to seminaries, you will note that questions have been asked. The bru-ha-ha was about what questions were being asked by the Visitation. To wit, questions were being asked to determine the soundness of formation, the conformity of teaching with the Church's, and the manner with which immorality (especially sexual) is dealt at those institutions. The bru-ha-ha had construed the Visitation as a witch hunt targeting "gays".

Celibacy is required and women excluded from the priesthood for practical and principled reasons. The Catholic Church, infuriatingly enough, does not do whatever the ACLU or ACT-UP wants them to do. Curiously enough, the Catholic Church has been around much longer than those organizations, and we have rather good reason to expect we will be around some time after they have disappeared.

As for the billion-dollar-lesson, yes, we are still learning it. The harm was done, not recently though - you will note how many cases are not liable to prosecution due to their datedness. In fact, most of the perpetrators were trained and ordained in the 1960s and 1970s. The problem is most assuredly not one caused by the current generation, but by their parents.

PaganPlace,

Well, I am replying. Let's try to keep communicating.

The French Quarter was spared because it is the Crescent of the Crescent City, i.e., it is above sea level, shaped like a crescent.

As to the fundamentalists rant, well, typical of those benighted pathetic people.

As to the Shrub's comment, you are absolutely correct. Anybody with more than three neurons to string together knew that New Orleans was a goner if a hurricane hit it at the right angle. "Brownie, you're doing a hecka of a job!" will live in infamy as ome of the stupidest comments ever by anyone.

Arminius, on New Orleans:

" Arminius:

I wept when it was flooded. I was outraged at the Shrub's inept efforts to help. (Shrub = Bush = Darth Dubya.)"

Did you also know that some prominent Fundies tried to call on 'God' to smite the 'Gay Pride' celebration and 'immoral' French Quarter, just prior to the hurricane coming?

Funny how that was the only area *spared* the disaster.

As has often happened.

Many Wiccans look on this as part of the *bad juju* that is tring to invoke 'God' to hurt gay people.

As for Bush's insistence, 'No one knew this could have happened!'

...He obviously hadn't been watching the Discovery Channel for ten years.

Ryan wrote: "I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean. I never wrote that eating and drinking were unimportant for human survival."

My point was that a lack of food and or water would shift your identity away from that of a male and towards that of a hungry animal. I find your claim of sexuality as primary to identity to be only partially true (which I conceded initially mind you). Therefore, I don't find it to be a convincing argument against the validity or applicability of the HSP.

To repeat what I said earlier, which was intended to be my main point..

If more people had extreme, goofy, hateful, messed up, backwards opinions about the fate of ham sandwich eaters, then we would indeed have heated discussions about ham sandwiches and those that eat (or don't eat) them. My point is that you are correct in your claim about us not having heated ham sandwich discussions but, from my point of view, are incorrect about why that might be so.

Note that I'm only contesting your explanation of why we don't have heated discussions about ham sandwiches.

Doesn't matter if the clergy is gay or not! As long as they stay true to the faith...

Terra,

You have the soul of New Orleans, that unique, beautiful city, described perfectly. No place like it on the planet. I love the French Quarter, oh God, I love it. Beignets, beer for sale on the corners, the music, the food....

I wept when it was flooded. I was outraged at the Shrub's inept efforts to help. (Shrub = Bush = Darth Dubya.)

I love the Vieux Carre; the French Quarter...on week days when the tourists are still at home. As people see Marti Gras and think that is all New Orleans is...and I go and see the history of 300+ years. I love the antuque shops and art galleries, the awesome resturants, the music and artists...the gardens and the arcitecture. oh did I forget the shops and the French Market and the Cafe Du Monde...Cafe Latte and beignets....And not one flashing boob or bead in site...
Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez"

terra

Arminius:
**At any rate, subjective experience is not empirical, except to the person experiencing it. That does not make it any less 'true'.**

You'll get no argument from me.

PaganPlace:
**Like with the gay pride march citation that "This is what the 'gay menace' is all about," when someone's seen a bunch of clips of the most outlandish costumes at a given celebration: complete with menacing music and narration to tell them what it 'means.'

They think, "Ah, ha, this is What LBGT people *are.*" **

Like folks who look at French Quarter Mardi Gras parades and tink that's all of New Orleans is like all the time.

Tonio,

Sorry for the confusion.

You are right that the existence of the Deity cannot be proven by any empirical methods. It is in the heart. I believe that God IS, and is with me. Can I prove it? No.

I happen to believe our perceptions are all subjective: you can hold a personal 'truth' that simply isn't good information about the world: problems come when certain forms of religion believe their beliefs are the same kind of 'facts' as that which can be observed and proven or disproven by anyone... or, too often, believe that religious truth *overrides* scientific truth, or that any 'scientific' truth must fit their religious view to be 'true' at all.

This can result in bad science, or people simply seeing what they *want* to see.

Like with the gay pride march citation that "This is what the 'gay menace' is all about," when someone's seen a bunch of clips of the most outlandish costumes at a given celebration: complete with menacing music and narration to tell them what it 'means.'

They think, "Ah, ha, this is What LBGT people *are.*"

They *don't* think, "You know, I could easily put together the same sort of propaganda movie about 'straight' behavior: football fans in bizarre costumes, streaking the field, Mardi Gras, these 'Girls Gone Wild' commercials of underaged girls being leered at by cameramen and all...

It's through the lens of bigotry that people see an essential difference between straight people doing odd or 'decadent' things... they don't leap to proclaim: "Here we see how straightness is bad, and straight people are like this in their daily lives!"

Pride marches are, for many of the participants *very much about* defusing the negative images and low-grade fears we live under every day: in some ways, you'd really have to live under it: it's in a way 'taking back our power' by making some of those images... and the closet itself, less powerful... making a celebration of comunity, where even the screaming fundamentalists that always show up can't scare us.

People may think they 'objectively know' what it's about to see these things, but in fact, what they consider 'objective' about it is in fact a selective view, and in fact a misinterpretation.

They're usually willfully ignoring the masses of more sensible-looking folks, too.

Lep!

Oh, hell, you are right! Please accept my groveling and humble apologies! I got the quotes messed up, I guess. I thought that was your reply to him.

At any rate, subjective experience is not empirical, except to the person experiencing it. That does not make it any less 'true'.

Arminius:

Huh? That wasn't my post you were responding to, it was Tonio's.

I read "experience" in his post as "subjective experience" based on the examples he used. Only the people in a relationship are in a postion to be able to judge the completeness of their relationship - it's their experience, but it's not empirically (objectively) provable or exactly repeatable by others.

I do agree with the idea that as long as the existence or will of a particular deity cannot be empirically (objectively) proven, it's not right for one group to try to impose what they perceive as the will of their deity on others.

Arminius, you were quoting my post instead of Lepidopteryx's, so I will respond. "Experience" is not quite the right word, and thanks for the clarification. I was making a distinction about wisdom gained through living versus observation of objects or phenomena, while suggesting that both fall into the realm of knowledge. Thanks

My overall point was this - a deity would be like any other object or phenomenon. Either it exists or it doesn't, and the only way to establish that is through empiricism. However, theism defines deities as being undetectable by empirical methods. That doesn't mean that one should flatly rule out the possibility of deity, but it does mean that there is no reason to treat the deity's existence as factual.

Susan Jacoby.....wretch!!......I tried to get off this page before I did that...didn't make it...oh no here is comes again....wretch...!

Lep,

We got a problem here. You said, "I would agree that there may be certain subjective concepts about human existence that are gleaned by experience and not directly by empiricism, although empirical observation may certainly shape that process. I'm saying that any claims about deities should be treated empirically, like any other claims about the universe. Such claims are not the same as truths gleaned from experience."

Er, um, say what? Here's the definition of empirical:

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

Ryan,

"We have the capacity to annihilate the world's population through nuclear armaments. That hardly means doing so is morally permissible."

You're actually comparing sex to nuclear armageddon???

I wasn't arguing that the existence of sex for pleasure means that it should be used. I was addressing the claim that a supreme being intentionally created sex to be used for procreation only. My example of dolphins was merely intended as an attempt to refute that claim. It's no different from pointing to observations of rudimentary morality in chimpanzees.

"Precisely because we CAN exclude procreation from sexual activity requires us to ask the question, 'Should we?'"

That's a valid point if you're talking about "should" in terms of the effects of actions on others. That relates to my larger point about morality being about happiness and suffering and not about deference to a real or imagined authority.

"Ah, all intentionality is beyond empirical science...Empirical science isn't the only way to know things."

I would agree that there may be certain subjective concepts about human existence that are gleaned by experience and not directly by empiricism, although empirical observation may certainly shape that process. I'm saying that any claims about deities should be treated empirically, like any other claims about the universe. Such claims are not the same as truths gleaned from experience. "Intentions" was the wrong word - I was referring specifically about claims about deities saying things to humans.

"My point is that my penis is part of my manhood; a woman's fertility is part of her femininity. Our bodies and our souls are connected, interconnected, manifestations one of the other. That is how we experience reality."

How can anyone really know how another person experiences reality? How can we really know what's it's like to live inside another person's head or body? It's possible that people perceive their own masculinity or feminity in ways other than you suggest. It's possible that same-sex couples find that same "complementarity" and deeper satisfaction as opposite-sex couples.

Your notion of "openness to conception" does a disservice to straight couples who are naturally infertile. That sounds uncomfortably close to the hateful claim by some Christians that natural infertility is a punishment from God.

Ryan:
**"Ryan, to expand on my earlier post, no one is arguing that sexual acts have no impact on people not involved in the act."

Actually, that was argued in exactly those words by Lepidopteryx.**

If you're going to quote me, do so accurately. What I said was,
"Tell me one way in which it affects anyone else (other than discussing it on a message board) whether I make love with my husband or PaganPlace makes love with her wife."

In other words, how does another person's relationship to his/her spouse affect you if you're not part of the relationship?

I said,
"Tell me one way in which it affects anyone except the lovers in question if a couple makes love while taking active measures not to concieve a child in the process."

So please tell me exactly how it affects anyone other than the couple in question if they use contraceptives.

I never said that sex could not affect people not involved. If my lover cheats on me, yes, it affects me. If one person rapes another, it affects society as a whole. But sexual relationships among consenting adults do not affect others outside the relationship, regardless of the anatomy of the adults in question, and regardless of whether the sex is procreative or recreational.

Tonio:

We have the capacity to annihilate the world's population through nuclear armaments. That hardly means doing so is morally permissible.

The capacity for humans to have sex for some other purpose than procreation itself is precisely the point in question. If we were stupid animals with only instinct to compel us, there would be no question. Precisely because we CAN exclude procreation from sexual activity requires us to ask the question, "Should we?"

I have heard the thing about dolphins before, and I cannot for my life figure out two things:

(1) How we can possibly know what their dolphin brains are thinking when they have sexual relations;

(2) How the existence of lust (pursuit of sexual gratification removed from or corrosive to personal relationship) among dolphins would possibly legitimize it among humans rather than simply meaning that dolphins too are susceptible to selfishness.

"If God is defined as beyond empirical science, then there is no way of knowing his intentions."

Ah, all intentionality is beyond empirical science. That doesn't mean it's unknowable. It only means that it's unknowable by empirical science. But empirical science isn't the only way to know things.

We all know TONS of things primarily by authority: most history, for instance, we 'know' because a high school history teacher told us. And provided he wasn't a chronic liar or frequently in conflict with the other things we knew, why should we doubt him?

We know TONS of things primarily by personal experience (rather than reproducible experiments): this lover cared for me, and that one did not; my mother was a gentle woman; etc. In fact, the most weightiest things we know are known in this way.

See, my whole point is that it is possible, just possible - at least within the realm of a real discussion, that difference might make a difference. My point is that my penis is part of my manhood; a woman's fertility is part of her femininity. Our bodies and our souls are connected, interconnected, manifestations one of the other. That is how we experience reality. The relationship between a man and a woman is different than the relationship between two men, or between two women; and the difference makes a difference, or else we wouldn't even notice the difference. But we do.

The question then is whether the difference has moral implications.

"Ryan, to expand on my earlier post, no one is arguing that sexual acts have no impact on people not involved in the act."

Actually, that was argued in exactly those words by Lepidopteryx.

I agree that in a wide range of pursuits, one's sexual activity does not make an immediate difference. Even if contraception might make spouses more selfish in bed, it does not mean they will ever, or immediately become theives. Even if they should degenerate into theives, certainly other factors are involved; to preemptively fire them from a job in banking for using contraception would be nonsense - wait until they've stolen something. Even if homosexual acts contain and cause disorder, they do not impinge immediately upon the ability to work as a bankers. To fire a homosexually-inclined or even -active person for that fact alone, is ludicrous and unjust - unless the homosexuality itself contradicts or impedes the job description.

Which brings us back to the subject of the blog.

If one's denomination defines "spiritually ministry" as cheering somebody up or helping them to sort out some of life's problems, then I cannot see a reason why homosexually-active people would necessarily be unable to perform to standard.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has historically believed that the Bible alone ("sola scriptura") is the basis for faith and morals. Its ministers have also been understood as those responsible for leading the faithful in implementing the Bible's principles. The Bible is eminently clear about its understanding of the morality of homosexuality. In order to permit leadership by homosexually-active persons, the ELCA must adopt a new standard, must stop being what it was, and become something different. So the ELCA has traded its biblical principles for homosexually-active ministers. That's their prerogative.

Ryan:
**In sexual relations I can give myself most freely if I am confident that I will be treasured and the gift reciprocated.**

I believe that reciprocation does not depend on contrary anatomy. I know same-sex couples that have been together for decades and bee through hell and high water together. Reciprocity is there. Love is there.

**This reciprocity is most possible where there is a genuine complementarity -**

And anatomical complementarity trumps mental, emotional, and spiritual complementarity? I think not.

**This self-gift is brought to its highest when the possibility of self-sacrifice is maintained, and that self-sacrifice is never so demanded as when a child is conceived.**

So now that neither my husband nor I are fertile any longer, should we stop making love to each other, since we could not make a baby if the fate of the free world rested on it? Sorry, but our love and desire for each other is not predicated on his ability to impregnate or my ability to conceive.

**Homosexuals within relationships might experience this mutual complementarity to some extent because personalities aren't rigidly
"masculine" or "feminine" and because those basic orientations aren't entirely fastened to anatomical sex; but they are very much grounded in anatomical sex. Still, without the complementarity and the deeper satisfaction that it brings, there is little space for trust to grow - jealousy, the idea of "sex as fun", promiscuity, and so on flourish.**

For people who love each other, sex is fun. Exploring each others bodies and finding different ways to please each other is an expression of that love, regardless of plumbing.

** I'm just observing what I see at gay pride events throughout the summer in every major metropolitan area in the US.**

Perhaps if someone wasn't always trying to stuff them back into a closet, gay people wouldn't feel the need to be so "out there" when they come out. Stuff somehting down long enough and it's going to explode.

**Contracepted sex-acts, instead of being practice for self-sacrifice and the stage on which love is most beautifully played out, are breeding grounds for selfishness - even homicidal selfishness - and lack of self-control.**

So a newlywed couple who are very deeply in love, but do not have the income to support a third person should invest in twin beds? Seems to me that physically expressing their love and passion for each other without bringing a third party that they aren't ready for into the world IS an exercise in self-control. Hungry mothers don't make much milk, and no milk means hungry babies.

Is it not also about the lack of interest in becoming a "clergyperson"? A good example is my Catholic Church. The number of men interested in the priesthood continues to plummet. The standards were therefore lowered, questions were not asked, celibacy was still required, women are still denied their rightful role and we are learning the lessons the hard way to the "tune" of a billion dollars so far.

TJ,

I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean. I never wrote that eating and drinking were unimportant for human survival.

I wrote that they are not central to human identity. Identity: one's self-conception; human: all that distinguishes us from other animals. Human identity: one's self-conception as being distinct from a mere animal.

Lepidopteryx:

***Tell me one way in which it affects anyone else (other than discussing it on a message board) whether I make love with my husband or PaganPlace makes love with her wife.
Tell me one way in which it affects anyone except the lovers in question if a couple makes love while taking active measures not to concieve a child in the process.***

Sex has the capacity to bring us outside of ourselves (that's what "exstacy" means) and thereby makes it so we can give ourselves away freely. The gift of ourself can best be received by someone with a genuine complementary capacity, someone who, in a sense, is an equal opposite. In sexual relations I can give myself most freely if I am confident that I will be treasured and the gift reciprocated. This reciprocity is most possible where there is a genuine complementarity - a genuine capacity to receive what one lacks from another, and return to the other what one has and the other lacks. Otherwise, this mutual self-donation will devolve into a you-scratch-my-back-and-I-scratch-yours, which isn't truly a gift of self, but quid-pro-quo, a disguised self-service making use of another (even a willing) person. What ought to be an occasion for self-gift and satisfaction becomes an occasion for self-gratification in the absense of complementarity. This self-gift is brought to its highest when the possibility of self-sacrifice is maintained, and that self-sacrifice is never so demanded as when a child is conceived. An infant demands and needs and wants and makes no return for a long time. Openness to conception brings the self-gift of spouses to its highest possible level: self-sacrifice. Without this openness, what should be an occasion for self-sacrificial love (even in the manner of how love-making is done) becomes an occasion merely to please the self (or at best another). Even if the two spouses are genuinely more concerned with pleasing the other than themselves, if they are both unwilling to make sacrifice, there is little to protect their love from quickly degrading into self-pleasure.

Homosexual sex-acts are by their nature closed to the complimentarity that satisfies. We are not made just for organisms, but for a genuine companionship of equal opposites - a mutual completion. Homosexuals within relationships might experience this mutual complementarity to some extent because personalities aren't rigidly
"masculine" or "feminine" and because those basic orientations aren't entirely fastened to anatomical sex; but they are very much grounded in anatomical sex. Still, without the complementarity and the deeper satisfaction that it brings, there is little space for trust to grow - jealousy, the idea of "sex as fun", promiscuity, and so on flourish.

If you think I am being bigoted, that's fine. I'm just observing what I see at gay pride events throughout the summer in every major metropolitan area in the US.

Contracepted sex-acts are by their very nature closed to the self-sacrifice that real love NEEDS. We cannot truly love without being willing to sacrifice. Without sacrifice, what is left is a quid-pro-quo. You love me, so I'll love you, and if you stop loving me, then it's over; rather than what love really wants, what marriage is about, "I love you, for better or for worse." Contracepted sex-acts, instead of being practice for self-sacrifice and the stage on which love is most beautifully played out, are breeding grounds for selfishness - even homicidal selfishness - and lack of self-control.

70% of women going to Planned Parenthood for an abortion referal report using contraception. They say things like, "I just don't know how I could have gotten pregnant." I hardly need to comment on the immense increase in promiscuity (not good for building long-term relational skills) and infidelity in the last 40 or so years since "reliable contraception" has been widely available.

That's what sex is for, at rock bottom. Denying that fact to use sex (and one's sexual partners) cannot go without consequence.

Andy:

At our wedding, my husband was the best man...

You get married who will be your best man? The bridegroom kisses the bride and the two become one flesh

Shilo:

DADT in the military is code for "stay in the closet." For a hetero soldier to put a picture of his wife or girlfriend on the wall next to his bunk would be a-ok, but for a gay soldier to put a picture of his husband or boyfriend up would be considered a violation of "don't tell" and leave him vulnerable to dishonorable discharge. Now do you see the problem with DADT for the military? The policy should be Don't Ask, Don't Require Silence.

As for homosexual clergy, my church once had a lesbian associate pastor. She and her wife relocated several years ago when her wife got an offer for her dream job. I still consider her my minister, and she is the one I go to most often for spiritual advice. The fact that she is married to a woman does not afect her ability to effectively minster to my spirit.

I am a bit taken aback by Ms. Jocoby's outburst, especially her blanket disapproval of "Don't ask, don't tell". Maybe I don't see the point, but in my mind DADT seems to be the right policy concerning sexual orientation and the army. (As for priests, rabbis and whatever, I hope to elaborate latter).

In Israel for years there has been an attitude of DADT for the military. Since a person's sexual preferences have little to do about how some one preforms his task in the military there is little reason to investigate that aspect at induction. Nothing to do with being neither a coward nor a hypocrite.

If on induction prospective soldiers were to be asked about their political beliefs (and when that happens here there is an outcry!) or whether or not they are gay I would think that as a gross intrusion on that inductee's personal belief's as would most people here. On the same token why should anyone be so obvious about an aspect that has no bearing on his proffessionalism (unless of course his or her goal is to be exempted from service). Any exagerated behaivour would interfere with military discipline and would have no place in the army (as well as in government service).

As for a homosexual becoming a rabbi, that is a bit of a jump. In the Bible, homosexuality and adultry are about at par (the first five books) with adultery being worse by some margin. Neither a homosexual nor a philanderer could be a "spiritual" leader for me and to think otherwise would make being a rabbi some type of job like a dentist or lawyer.

You might inquire of my general opinion of homosexuality, to which I would answer that with so many other things going on in the world, that why should I bother myself with it. Afterall our politicians lie and steal (sound familar?) and the public discourse is so coarse that I'd have to be fixated on the subject to care too much about it. At any rate most of us know by now that you can't categorically reject someone because he or she is homosexual. Still, not everyone can lead the choir.

As for the general onslaught (or is it backlash) against religion , I'd like to see something that goes beyond the usual diatribes and prejudices that goes for argument. Religious belief, even Orthodox religious belief does not mean that one is narrow minded and conservative. Religious people can (or even should) be open and aware of the world of other opinions and be able to discuss with others what they believe in.

I am a bit taken aback by Ms. Jocoby's outburst, especially her blanket disapproval of "Don't ask, don't tell". Maybe I don't see the point, but in my mind DADT seems to be the right policy concerning sexual orientation and the army. (As for priests, rabbis and whatever, I hope to elaborate latter).

In Israel for years there has been an attitude of DADT for the military. Since a person's sexual preferences have little to do about how some one preforms his task in the military there is little reason to investigate that aspect at induction. Nothing to do with being neither a coward nor a hypocrite.

If on induction prospective soldiers were to be asked about their political beliefs (and when that happens here there is an outcry!) or whether or not they are gay I would think that as a gross intrusion on that inductee's personal belief's as would most people here. On the same token why should anyone be so obvious about an aspect that has no bearing on his proffessionalism (unless of course his or her goal is to be exempted from service). Any exagerated behaivour would interfere with military discipline and would have no place in the army (as well as in government service).

As for a homosexual becoming a rabbi, that is a bit of a jump. In the Bible, homosexuality and adultry are about at par (the first five books) with adultery being worse by some margin. Neither a homosexual nor a philanderer could be a "spiritual" leader for me and to think otherwise would make being a rabbi some type of job like a dentist or lawyer.

You might inquire of my general opinion of homosexuality, to which I would answer that with so many other things going on in the world, that why should I bother myself with it. Afterall our politicians lie and steal (sound familar?) and the public discourse is so coarse that I'd have to be fixated on the subject to care too much about it. At any rate most of us know by now that you can't categorically reject someone because he or she is homosexual. Still, not everyone can lead the choir.

As for the general onslaught (or is it backlash) against religion , I'd like to see something that goes beyond the usual diatribes and prejudices that goes for argument. Religious belief, even Orthodox religious belief does not mean that one is narrow minded and conservative. Religious people can (or even should) be open and aware of the world of other opinions and be able to discuss with others what they believe in.

I see that Craig also opposes gay rights - interesting that the phobes so often turn out to be closet cases, no?

As to whether he was looking for a freebie or willing to pay a pro, it never got that far, so we'll never know.

To lepidopteryx:

'I don't know about where you live, but here, the folks hanging out in Greyhound restrooms aren't the sexually compulsive, but the sexually professional.'

Have you read the Washington Post front page this morning, re the Senator Larry Craig (R) of Idaho episode? Apparently these folks are the 'sexually compulsive', and they have moved from the Greyhound to airport restrooms.

I don't know why this should be a front page story, except for the hypocracy involved, and the fact that this will surely remove one hypocrite from the US Senate.

Given that we are talking about Idaho, however, another Republican hypocrite will probably take his place.

Bigotry is destructive no matter where it's found or how it's rationalized. The fact that religion supports bigotry is one more reason to doubt the "loving" nature of the fairy tale daddy these religions claim to follow.

Bigotry is destructive no matter where it's found or how it's rationalized. The fact that religion supports bigotry is one more reason to doubt the "loving" nature of the fairy tale daddy these religions claim to follow.

Ryan, to expand on my earlier post, no one is arguing that sexual acts have no impact on people not involved in the act. Adultery and STDs are good examples. When two people are in a committed monogamous relationship, in principle the relationship would cause no suffering to others. (In practice there may be instances where the suffering is minimal.) This is true whether the relationship is opposite-sex or same-sex. Any suffering related to homosexuality is caused not by the relationship itself but by the unwarranted disapproval of others, which creates guilt where none is deserved.

My point about "no one else's business" is that this standard applies to behavior that would normally not harm others. The burden of proof is on those who claim that such behavior should be their concern. (And even with adultery which does cause suffering, treating information about it as public would cause additional suffering to the jilted partner through loss of privacy.)

Ryan,

"Sexual acts closed, by nature or by choice, to procreation go against the most basic nature of those acts and so introduce disorder into the relationship of which they are a part."

The flaw in that argument is that humans have the capability of sex for its own sake. This is particularly true of women where the orgasm is not technically necessary in the process of conception. (Dolphins also have that capability.) That argues against some agency intending for sex to be used only for procreation.

"But if God made us, and wills our wellbeing and happiness, and having made us knows best what will attain those for us, then a definition of morality based on human happiness and a definition of morality as obedience to God begin to converge."

If God is defined as beyond empirical science, then there is no way of knowing his intentions. There is no reason to make your assumption or any other assumption about his intentions.

"There are people who, by dint of lying so often, cannot clearly discern truth from falsehood even in their own mind."

That is accurate. My point about morality had to do with another mindset - the people who are so focused on pleasing authority that they cannot resolve moral and ethical issues on their own.

"If sexual acts do have moral implications, the question left to be explored is whether heterosexual and homosexual acts are essentially the same, i.e., whether hetero- (differing) and homo- (same) make matter at all."

I'm suggesting that the moral questions are the same no matter what the orientation. In my experience, so-called "moral" objections to homosexuality focus either on claims about "God's will" or about notions about people allegedly having a responsibility to procreate.

Ryan Haber wrote: "Your first statement is seen false on cursory examination."

Let's do an experiment. Go without food for a week or without water for a few days and get back to me on that.

Thank you so much for this thoughtful and timely inquiry. One thing I've always wondered about the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is if there are sanctions against people who ask if someone is gay or lesbian - after all that is even the first of the two prohibitions in this malignant injunction.

Godfrey:

I don't know about where you live, but here, the folks hanging out in Greyhound restrooms aren't the sexually compulsive, but the sexually professional.

Jihadist:

Clarification on the bus station reference: Years ago, sexually compulsive guys liked to do it in the restrooms at bus stations, until bus stations finally started locking the bathroom doors and making you show your ticket to get the key.

Maurie Beck,

Many Muslims, among them Fazlur Rahman, have been calling for Islamic renewal. Talk of secularism, modernity and Islam has been going for some time now specially in light of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If you are interested in reading about this subject you can check out this website.

http://www.algonet.se/~pmanzoor/Agnst-Rdctn-Isl-Gvrnce.htm

In an article ‘Against the Reduction of Islam to Governance’ we read:
“…Whatever its pretensions to neutrality with respect to Christian conscience, there's no denying that Western secularism is blatantly, outrageously and to some even pathologically anti-Islamic. Joseph Carens and Mellissa Williams' detailed scholarly discussion of 'Muslim Minorities in Liberal Democracies: The Politics of Misrecognition' amply testifies to the fact that while Western liberal democracies regard the value of religious liberty as paramount, this priority is often reversed when dealing with Islam…”

“…One of the most original and provocative thesis about the nature of existential compromise achieved by the Islamic tradition, a compromise that secured a separation of faith and governance, has been presented by the French thinker Olivier Carré. His slim volume about the Great Tradition of a laïc, non-ecclesiastical Islam, one of the most exciting pieces of writing to have appeared on the scholarly scene, merits an English translation as soon as possible.
Carré's insight is based not on the discovery of any new historical evidence, but on a novel way of perceiving the dialectics of Islamic existence; that is, not as the dichotomy of text and history, the antinomy of ideals and realities, but as the interplay of 'governance' and 'law' in the arena of laïcité, in the worldly domain where the political is not under the tutelage of the clergy. Traditional Islam, accordingly, has been 'secular' without being 'secularist'; it has affirmed the this-worldly logic of politics and history but never accepted the state as sovereign or reduced faith to governance. Carré's thesis, then, fiercely rejects Orientalist prejudices about Islam's inherent incapacity to separate governance from sacred law and hence become modern, just as it boldly challenges all other Islamophobic claims that have been advanced in contemporary France in the name of sociology or secularism. Carré's argument that is based on the lessons of Muslim history and actual praxis, thus, forcefully repudiates all those glib assertions about Islam's (essential!) incompatibility with individualism, secularism, democracy and the rule of law!..”

There are also other articles in that website that might satisfy your interest if you want more insight into Islam and modernity.

The Jihadist noted: "We really don't have to go whole hog over ham sandwiches". That is true, but we MUST go whole hog over the flaws in the foundations of our religions. With respect to Islam, we continue to await The Jihadist's response to:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations (most if not all of his devil/angel sitings being embellishments), has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the OT and John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics. And who funds these acts of terror? Islamic Iran, the Third Axis of Evil and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia, two groups The Jihadist never criticizes.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy

Hi Jihadist and Islamist. It was a busy weekend.

Thank you both for your posts. Lilla's essay and book (The Stillborn God) have been getting a lot of reaction. Below are web addresses for two of those reactions, one by Christopher Hitchens and the other by Larry Arnhart.

Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/id/2172468/
P.s. One of the reasons I included the Hitchens response is that I love his writing. He is always engaging, provocative, inventive, and thoroughly well educated, even if one does not always agree with his POV.

Larry Arnhart http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2007/08/mark-lillas-politics-of-god.html

My primary interests in the essay were two-fold.

1) It gave me a better understanding of believers and the way they see their place in the Universe in relation to God and to man. Those who grew up in the world following the Great Separation had and have a difficult time understanding the worldview of political theology. Hence, gazing between the extremes of confusion and fear at those on the Opposite Shore.

2)The other point involves the idea of humans being theotropic creatures who naturally invest meaning and explanation where there might be none at all. If this is true (and it seems likely), the modern polemics of atheism espoused by such writers as Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, Hirsi Ali, Susan Jacoby, etc. is doomed. It would be akin to telling people that Love is nothing but a functional construct of biology that is not real, in and of itself, any more than God is a not real for the same reason.

Dawkins and those others suggest that giving up God, once one realizes that such a being probably does not exist, should be a logical outcome. However, if one were to ask Dawkins about giving up Love for the same reason, what would his answer be? From all accounts he is happily married and very much in love with his third wife, the beautiful actress Lalla Ward. I doubt he would even entertain such a suggestion. If a belief in God is as powerful as falling in love, how then can anyone entertain giving up either?

Before you think I might actually be considering becoming religious; fear not. I'm a very happy non-believer, as always full of wonder.

And as for being an 'ally' ...try calling a homophobe on something once in a while instead of just making me defend my character every time I speak, how bout.

Ally.

Arminius, ...you constantly come after me as 'Oh, she's too anti-Christian to talk to cause she questions the premises by which her civil rights are attacked.'

You just said it's *me* comparing my life to a ham sandwich...

No. It's the *homophobes using Christianity who do this like life itself depends on it.*

If you want to communicate, try, *stepping outside your Biblical world for half a minute.

Do you have any idea how trivial and hateful Christianity's harping on the form of sexuality is, to anyone that doesn't actually know or care from that book of yours, or the common uses of it for people to marginalize one in ten or twenty citizens and put a good proportion of the rest in constant fear of *seeming* gay?

If Christian churches want to deal with their bigotries and the effects of what they say, whether it's done blithely and heedlessly or frothing at the mouth, they need some damn perspective on *sex.*

And on the other people whose real lives *your* book compares to a ham sandwich.

Whether or not you think ham sandwiches are ok or not, it's still not your call, the value of *my* life, soul, love, or marriage.

It's not 'anti-Christian' to say *this is unfair and you overstep your religion all over our lives.*

You can teach each other how Godless and unspiritiual and selfish and hedonist until you're all blue in the face... It doesn't change anything real, except the *crap* people like me go through in society while being condescended to by people like you for occasionally getting *peeved* about it.

Gods.

You want to talk religion in life, go ahead and bring your book *into* life, don't act all put out cause we don't actually *live* in your book.

Ryan:**Does anybody here have any reason to think that an act that affects who I am will not also affect the people that I affect?**

Tell me one way in which it affects anyone else (other than discussing it on a message board) whether I make love with my husband or PaganPlace makes love with her wife.
Tell me one way in which it affects anyone except the lovers in question if a couple makes love while taking active measures not to concieve a child in the process.

PaganPlace,

I did NOT attack you. I did not come after you. I have never done so. I disagreed with you.

I quoted Mark about dietary laws. How the HELL did you manage to stretch that to our general discussion about gays and lesbians? That defeats me.

You make no sense.

Goodbye, PaganPlace. I can't take your chaotic rants any longer.

"This is difficult. You addressed me in the post, but went on to bash Christians in general - or so it seems. Do not forget that I am your ally."

Umm, if you're an ally, check fire.

I'm not 'bashing Christians' when I tell you it's extremely rude to say it's *me* comparing my own life to a ham sandwich. It's actually, certain interpretations of Christian dogma, which say 'gayness is gay sex and gay sex is a sin, cause,'

"Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile."

....Unless of course that's something to do with gay sex. Then it can defile everything, according to some.

To people who think both my life *and* ham sandwiches ought to be banned, well, that's the same false equivalency.

Again, as an 'ally' you come after *me* at length, yet, I'm just not feeling supported, here.

You condescend, you attack, you call me all manner of unenlightened, you *still* think I'm 'defiled' for the external actions *you* reduce my partnership of years to, then try to guilt-trip me as an 'ally.'

Check fire, if you wanna help.

What you're doing is trying to defend the premises of my oppression, like you're some kind of superior, and then blame it all on anything but how Christian dogma is interpreted.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.... You want to say it's wrong for me to have my life cause of your interpretation of your book, ... you just don't want to be the *bad* guy for it.

Look what you've been doing.

To the anonymous poster,

If the cosmic effect of a thing, it's how-it-impacts-the-universe-in-the-grand-scheme, is to be the basis of discerning its moral quality, then virtually nothing humans do has any moral dimension. Even nuking the entire earth would make very little difference to the solar system probably, let alone the universe.

Let's not confuse size and importance.

--

Tonio:

"Christian conservatives oppose not only homosexuality but also pornography, contraception, and abortion. Together, these suggest a deeper opposition to all non-procreative sex."

There's no suggesting about it. The Catholic faith (the only perspective from which I can speak) is quite open about the whole thing. But your formulation isn't quite what a catechism might say. I'll rephrase it in a subtle but important way:

"Sexual acts closed, by nature or by choice, to procreation go against the most basic nature of those acts and so introduce disorder into the relationship of which they are a part. Masturbation, pornography, contraception, and homosexual acts are all examples of such acts; abortion is an example of contraception by means of homicide. Such acts cannot be condoned."

--

TJ:

"...but sexuality isn't any more or less central than consuming food or excreting waste is. It's not even unique to humans but is shared with the vast majority of other animals."

Your first statement is seen false on cursory examination. Your second is nonsequitur and irrelevant.

Sexuality is central to human identity. Our sexuality is part of us from the instant of our conception - before we have eyes, we have a genetic sex; before we defecate, we have a genetic sex. Humans are genetically, barring freak abnormalities, genetically and anatomically divided into and present only in two sexes: male and female. You will never meet a human that is not one or the other. It is the first fact of human existence, and it is the lens through which we experience everything else - you will never experience (or do) anything except as a male or female.

The fact that sexual differentiation is not unique to humans is irrelevant to its place in our identity. Sexuality is not essential to humanity - that is, it is not part of what distinguishes humans from nonhumans. I wasn't writing about our essential nature (that we each have two human parents; brains capable - under normal circumstances - of rational, abstract thought; freedom to choose - under normal circumstances - in a way semi-independent of instinct or training). I was writing about human identity. Identity is the experience of being oneself, of being an "I". I am not an abstraction and cannot imagine myself abstractly, but only incarnate in a body, which is (barring very rare abnormality) either male or female.

--

Tonio:

"The larger problem is the illogic of defining morality as obedience to God. That definition treats questions of human happiness or suffering as secondary or irrelevant. Homosexuality poses no intrinsic harm to society, yet many people still regard gays as no better than cold-blooded murderers."

You're right, that to define morality (exclusively) as obedience to God introduces a lot of problems. But if God made us, and wills our wellbeing and happiness, and having made us knows best what will attain those for us, then a definition of morality based on human happiness and a definition of morality as obedience to God begin to converge.

Whether homosexual acts instrinically pose a risk or harm to society is precisely the question that our culture is vigorously (though somewhat stupidly) debating right now. You can simply assert that it poses no threat to society, and then someone might simply assert the contrary; then we will have gotten nowhere.

--

Let me pose a model of morality. It comes from the Latin "mos, moris" and it means "the way things are done." It has a counterpart in the word "jus, juris" which means "the way things ought to be done." My model is an analogy to a fleet headed out to sea. Each ship has its own internal affairs - how the mast is rigged, the anchor weighed, the food stowed, the crew trained and disciplined, and so on. There is a protocol governing the ships' movement relative to each other, as well - which ship yields the right of way, which ship takes point and which sweeps for the convoy, how men overboard are rescued, and so on. Lastly, the fleet has a direction.

It is impossible to imagine the fleet getting to wherever it is supposed to go while its protocol is badly designed. But even a well organized protocol for the ships' interaction will never be well implemented if the individual ships are badly managed. A ship's captain might intend to yield the right of way to a ship passing in front of his, but because of the bad discipline of the crew, his orders cannot be carried out, and the ships collide.

Just so in a society. There are people who, by dint of lying so often, cannot clearly discern truth from falsehood even in their own mind. Such a person might honestly intend to tell the truth in the witness stand under oath, but having lied so many times before about so many things, he cannot even quite recall what the truth really was; consequently an innocent man might be imprisoned, or a guilty one freed.

The things we do that affect us individually also have concommitant, if not immediately obvious or visible, social effects. That is because we are inherently social animals.

--

Do you have any concrete reasons that you can forward that sexual acts, which come from so deep inside us, from our "who-I-am", will not affect us? Does anybody here have any reason to think that an act that affects who I am will not also affect the people that I affect? Can we honestly think that sexual acts are just left behind once completely, and will have no broader implications beyond the acts themselves?

The Ham Sandwich Principle argues that the whole question is irrelevant (and for the stupid reason that it doesn't affect the orbit of Jupiter).

If sexual acts do have moral implications, the question left to be explored is whether heterosexual and homosexual acts are essentially the same, i.e., whether hetero- (differing) and homo- (same) make matter at all. Does it make a difference that things are different, or are these things (sexual things, here) really all just the same? That's the question.

Sorry - I'm not one for soundbites, but truth has a funny way of being complicated - which is what we expect if it really mirrors a complicated world.

Susan Jacoby for President! Please!

Hey, Jihadist!

Yeah, ham sandwiches ain't where it's at, for sure.

I am just concerned that I cannot dialog with PaganPlace. I don't give the proverbial tinker's dam(n) about her sexual preference, and have respect for her religion. And I certainly recognize the vitriol that has been aimed in her direction. But anger only produces more anger.

Keep the posts coming, J!

Arminius

Paganplace is both gay and/or bixesual, a wiccan/pagan apart from being a woman. So....that is like a double, triple discrimination by mainstreamers felt by her? I've read really nasty posts directed at wiccans/pagans and gays in On Faith threads. Not from you of course.

We really don't have to go whole hog over ham sandwiches. Unless someone pigged out on them for months and complained s/he's now fat like a pig.

A ham sandwich is the least of our concerns here on gays and gay rights.

Best regards as always
J

PaganPlace,

This is difficult. You addressed me in the post, but went on to bash Christians in general - or so it seems. Do not forget that I am your ally.

As far as dietary laws from Leviticus, anyway: from Mark 7, the words of Jesus:

Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile.
When he got home away from the crowd his disciples questioned him about the parable.
He said to them, "Are even you likewise without understanding? Do you not realize that everything that goes into a person from outside cannot defile,
since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
But what comes out of a person, that is what defiles.

I do not mock Jews and Muslims for not eating pork. That's their gig.

Why are you so angry?

" Arminius:

"PaganPlace,

"I suppose that you just might have mentioned, when you said, "That's cause people aren't unfairly abused and marginalized all their lives for eating ham sandwiches." that over 1-1/2 billion people in this world are forbidden by their religion to eat ham sandwitches. Jews and Muslims. I know you thought about it; just curious. This doesn't really subvert your argument, but merely makes the reference to ham rather silly all around."

Well, I don't think that it's 'unfair' to be forbidden by your religion to eat ham sandwiches.

It's just someone's internal rules.

Now, if someone treated *me* as a third-class citizen cause I like a bacon cheeseburger, or cause I lived somewhere that the only way I get enough protein is from a pig processing things I can't digest, well, no. That wouldn't be fair. Would I think that religion was nonsense? Probably.

The loves of my life are not ham sandwiches. Not even bacon cheeseburgers.

Which I do like an awful lot, but are not on the same order as certain religious texts *make* them.

Were I a monotheist, I could do without.

Apparently to them it's 'abominable.' I shall be killed and my blood shall be upon me, even if that only literally applies to boys... try telling a basher that.

To your religious purity laws, these are apparently just as ultimate damnation. But as a minority, I know these tabooes are taken as justification to harm me and my sweetie in society, even if that's not our religious practice.

Even for Christians... who chow down on bacon just fine... in fact mock Jews and Muslims for *not* liking bacon... they take words from the very same passages to justify *hurting us.* About things which *are* important to our lives.

If you couldn't guess, I'm a very cerebral person. I don't even *have* a whole lot of sex. But it's special, it's sacred, it's good, and if you think it makes me any less a person or any less moral, that's *your* beliefs defending heinous injustice... And then turning around and equating hurts... and my life, with the 'grossest' biology you can imagine, and with 'ham sandwiches.

NO.

These are our lives. Our *loves.* Our *years,* our *times,* our *memories,* and our *futures.*

You ask too much if you want us to hide and bow and scrape cause you think your squishy noises are divinely ordained.

The larger problem is the illogic of defining morality as obedience to God. That definition treats questions of human happiness or suffering as secondary or irrelevant. Homosexuality poses no intrinsic harm to society, yet many people still regard gays as no better than cold-blooded murderers.

The larger problem is the illogic of defining morality as obedience to God. That definition treats questions of human happiness or suffering as secondary or irrelevant. Homosexuality poses no intrinsic harm to society, yet many people still regard gays as no better than cold-blooded murderers.

PaganPlace,

I suppose that you just might have mentioned, when you said, "That's cause people aren't unfairly abused and marginalized all their lives for eating ham sandwiches." that over 1-1/2 billion people in this world are forbidden by their religion to eat ham sandwitches. Jews and Muslims. I know you thought about it; just curious. This doesn't really subvert your argument, but merely makes the reference to ham rather silly all around.

I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but if you *force* gay people to be closeted in order to keep their jobs and rights as law-abiding American citizens, you *create* the conditions for blackmail, ...the opposite of protecting operations from it.

Force people to be closeted, you don't even know who they *are.* Never mind ensure operational security.

Force people to be closeted, you don't have *unit cohesion,* even for homophobes... You have them not knowing *who* might be gay.

Great essay as always, Ms Jacoby. It's amazing how clear this issue is when it isn't being studied through the lens of ancient goat-herder morality.

"And then continued: "We don't get heated in discussions of ham sandwiches, and that right there shows that we know there is a difference between the two, not just in degree of importance, but of kind as well."

That's cause people aren't unfairly abused and marginalized all their lives for eating ham sandwiches.

Furthermore, if ham sandwiches were made unavailable by some religious edict, it wouldn't be expecting people who may not even hold any taboo against it to live lives of loneliness, isolation, and fear just cause someone said 'Ham sandwich eating is evil and degenerate.'

You're right. Sexuality is more intimate than diet.

That doesn't make it any less arbitrary, or any more right, to say, 'Anything gay is 'sin' and thus gays are right to be persecuted...'

Or that, in fact, it's a good idea to fire our most-needed linguists and replace them with people of *lower* security clearance potential because of an outdated idea that because of homophobia making closeted people subject to blackmail, any out and thus unblackmailable gays should be dishonorably-discharged.

Bigotry, pure and simple.

Ryan Haber wrote: "We all believe that sexuality IS central, and there is no use any on this board denying that, because we all tend (everyone here has) to get heated in discussion of it."

Let's not get carried away. You do have a bit of a point, but sexuality isn't any more or less central than consuming food or excreting waste is. It's not even unique to humans but is shared with the vast majority of other animals.

And then continued: "We don't get heated in discussions of ham sandwiches, and that right there shows that we know there is a difference between the two, not just in degree of importance, but of kind as well."

No, you are quite incorrect. It only shows that the vast majority of people don't have messed up, over blown, and backwards opinions on ham sandwiches. If you want to start suggesting that those that eat ham sandwiches should be discriminated against by those that don't, simply because those that don't heard a fairy tale that claims that ham sandwich eaters are EVIL, then I suppose we'll have some heated conversations about that too.

Ms. Jacoby seems to be a beacon of sense in this whole discussion. The Bible talks about many things that are puzzling. When slaves possessed by different owners produce a child, the Bible says that the male slave's owner gets this child as a new slave. It is a simple solution that appears to ignore the bigger problem of slavery.

I wonder how many of us would say that killing children who talk back to parents is really acceptable. Should women - only women - who commit adultery be stoned? It seems slightly harsh. There will also be major problems in hospitals, Wal-Marts, and the nearest amusement park or theater if we start killing those who work on the Sabbath.

Which creation story should we believe in? The first chapter of Genesis says that Adam and Eve were created together; the second says that Adam got lonely and was not happy talking to plants and animals, so Eve was created from his rib. Also, creating plants before creating the sun pokes fun at photosynthesis.

If religion should meet any test, it should be that it explains everything. In order to do that, it must be completely correct. Those who would argue the inerrancy of the Bible have a high hurdle.

Ryan,

Your argument about sexuality and identity is valid to a point. The Ham Sandwich Principle wouldn't apply to one's own sexuality, but it would definitely apply to the sexuality of others. The HSP means that sexual behavior and identity are private matters, and these are no one else's business as long as these don't harm others.

Christian conservatives oppose not only homosexuality but also pornography, contraception, and abortion. Together, these suggest a deeper opposition to all non-procreative sex.

How can one believe in the literal truth of the Bible when one part contradicts another, not a few, but hundreds of times from beginning to end? At the very beginning there are two creation stories that can't logically be reconciled. As for "don't ask, don't tell" and the discharged gay translators, I wonder how many soldiers have been killed or maimed because those translators weren't there to talk with friendly locals who might have informed them of the activities of the insurgents. They were sent there , presumably, for a reason. Ironically, this policy was foisted on Clinton and continues to be kept in place by the people who most loudly proclaim their love and admiration for our troops - Christian conservatives.

"What I think it actually means, is, "we don't like to think about what these people do, so we're going to pretend that they don't."

LOL in complete agreement with Godfrey's definition!

Ryan Haber,

"If human sexuality is so central to human nature and the question of "Who Am I?" then how can one seriously say, at the same time, that its ramifications and implications are about as important as eating a ham sandwich?"

I believe the HSP is in regards to the cosmic ramifications of the act. In the personal sense, no, it doesn't fit, but in the big picture...the how-it-impacts-the-universe aspect of each act, it does.

A "don't ask, don't tell" policy with respect to religious clergy would be impossible for how indeed does one hide one's sexuality when you serve the public?? The former governor of NJ tried but failed and had to come "clean" when his lover threatened to expose him.

And what about the potential for contracting AIDS if you are a promiscuous homosexual/heterosexual clergyperson? Should the congregation have to pay for said cleryperson's care? Magic Johnson can afford his medications, most congregations cannot.

Coincidentally, I agree with Susan Jacoby that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is hypocritcal. Much better for everyone to be upfront about who they are, where they stand, and then to act accordingly.

I'm sorry, but I have to say it. The Ham Sandwich Principle is ludicrous.

If human sexuality is so central to human nature and the question of "Who Am I?" then how can one seriously say, at the same time, that its ramifications and implications are about as important as eating a ham sandwich?

Either human sexuality is core to who we are, and thus very important; or it is peripheral, and thus not very important; or something in the middle. How can it possibly follow from the fact that sexuality is central to identity that it is therefore irrelevant to either identity or society (which is, after all, a conglomeration and interaction of identities)?

We all believe that sexuality IS central, and there is no use any on this board denying that, because we all tend (everyone here has) to get heated in discussion of it. We don't get heated in discussions of ham sandwiches, and that right there shows that we know there is a difference between the two, not just in degree of importance, but of kind as well.

It makes we wonder that I even spent 5 minutes writing this note, but I couldn't leave the Ham Sandwich Principle, as unhinged as it is, unchallenged.

Ahh, The Jihadist is back and still not dealing with the flaws in Islam as she continues to deal from an erroneous deck of koranic cards. Her "prophet"/profiteer is false just as Isaiah, Jesus and Joe Smith were false prophets. When she finally admits to the errors of Islam, her commentaries will then have some meaning.

Dear Maurie Beck

If you come by this quiet spot again, it is Olivier Roy, he's a Frenchman and his latest book, now available in English, is called, "Secularism Confronts Islam". My bad. I have not received that book yet. Thanks again for that link to Mark Lilla's essay in NYT.

Best regards as ever.
J

Godfrey,

Hope you had a great weekend.

What? No leather? No whip? No tie me up, tie me down?

No smoking after sex? Surely everyone gets steamy and smoke sometimes - before, during, after, with or without cigarettes, bong, ganja what have you.

No doing it at bus stop so it won't scare the buses, little old ladies and rough sleepers/street persons? No doing it in the streets so it won't frighten the horses, stray cats and dogs? Dirty old men and exhibitionists are different category.

A "chaste" wife? Could be a repressed gay woman. They used to call these "frigid".

No drugs? Darn! That rules out Viagra for men.

No alcohol? Heck. Firewater makes the partner looks like Nicole Kidman or Tom Cruise.

No latex clothing? No even for a small member? That is cruel. Condom sales will drop.

What is this with Americans always calling the police to ask to stop all loud noises coming from neighbours - from happy party music to ecstatic screamings as disturbing the peace and lowering the value of the neighbourhood?

Thanks for the entertaining and much better explantions. I read Martin Marty's piece on it and it clears up some things as per the decision, or non-decision, or agreed interim formulation, until a more decisive decision is made re the issue of gay clergy, and gays in general by the ELCA.

It can be that the word "chaste" means men and women:

(a) not committing adultery

(b) not engaging in sado-machosism

However (a) and (b) can be problematic if they are between consenting adults and thus legal if neither partner whine to the neighbours or calls the police. Becomes rape and torture then.

"Chaste" can also mean not dressing (what little thread is put on) and acting like pole dancers and Chippendale hunks.

Norrie Hoyt

The issue of eating ham sandwiches only applies to kosher keeping Jewish rabbis and halal keeping Muslim imams, kadis and muftis. Does not apply to ELCA clergy. Not to Brahmin Hindu priests. They're vegetarians. Or Buddhist monks. They all have to lead by example.

Everyone knows that having sex and reaching orgasm, not eating ham sandwiches, is the "sudden temporary death",when you see the light, attain enlightenment, communion, peace and ecstatic salvation. Sort off. Better, faster, more enjoyable and calorie burning than meditation or yoga.

So, how could chaste Buddhish monks, Hindu priests, Catholic clergy knows anything about human salvation and ecstasy?

Godfrey and Norrie

You're both right. This is a non-issue issue made into an issue by those who made it into an issue in the first place, and now have to dig themselves out of the issue.

Let them be hair-splitting, hair-tearing and hair-pulling while we do it :)

Best regards as always

J

A point I should have made in connection with "chaste:" it doesn't always mean abstaining from sex. There are such phrases as "a chaste wife."

The Lutheran Churches, and all other religious organizations, would take a great leap forward toward peace, harmony, and enlightenment, if they simply adopted The Ham Sandwich Principle in relation to gay issues.

The Principle is this:

Spend no more time debating or being concerned with gay issues than you do debating and worrying about what should be done with clergy and parishioners who eat ham sandwiches.

Eating ham sandwiches, and being gay or having gay sex, have the same cosmic significance.

Act on that Principle and you'll be closer to attaining Salvation.

My use of the words "monogamous" and "post-coital" above are problematic. Strictly speaking, both words apply to heterosexual behavior only.

Interesting historical sidebar on the word "kink" in a sexual context: The word goes back to the Robert Heinlein novel _Door into Summer._ A time traveler sees it written on the sidewalk. Never finds out what it means. Almost gets punched in the mouth for asking.

Jihadist:

The use of the word "chaste" is distinctly odd in this context. Going by the feel of the word, rather than the definition, I speculate it means one or all of the following:

Monogamous. No three-ways. No hanging out at the bus station.

Nothing kinky. No sex toys. No latex clothing.

Nothing loud enough that the neighbors can hear it.

No drugs. No alcohol. No post-coital cigarette.

What I think it actually means, is, "we don't like to think about what these people do, so we're going to pretend that they don't."

And what about the word "mutual?" Surely that can only mean, "no rape," which has nothing to do with the context. Actual meaning, approximately: "We can't believe you both want to, but if you really do...."

"Faithful" definitely means, "no hanging out at the bus station," so "chaste" must not have meant monogamous, because that would be a pleonasm. wouldn't it?

As for "encouraging to refrain from disciplining," those are weasel words that mean, "we personally will feel bad if you discipline, but we won't say anything."

The background to this dispute? I don't know. Don't care. I think it's past time that everyone recognize that people are going to have sex, and everyone does it funny to someone. (For the non-native speaker, that means: no matter how you do it, someone is going to think there's something wrong with it).

Does that clear it up?

Maurie

Thanks for the links. I was waiting to see if Jihadist would come in, read Mark Lilla's piece and comment on it to see what she thinks. Instead, she's resorted to listing a few reasons for the west/Islamic world dichotomy as a gambit to see how deep you know the Islamic world. Re Irshad Manji, the only interesting thing about her is her being gay. What she wrote is tepid and trite. Her source materials on Islam and Muslims are from western scholars and Muslims living outside the US. She has no formal academic training as an expert on Islam. Her essay for Washington Post, as by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, opined that the whole Muslim world will be reformed by Muslims and former Muslims in the west. This is a fallacious premise by both that contradicts the reality that serious Muslims look into their own societies' Islamic traditions for change. Mark Lilla's piece is more useful as another glimpse of how the west see Islam. It would be better for Mark Lilla or his researchers to ask Muslim journalists in Muslim countries who are the Muslim scholars, leaders and thinkers that most influence Muslims, and read what they say for a sense of how language and terms are used by Muslims, and what are the issues. Jihadist did list out, very briefly, some of the the basis for the general thinking of influential Muslims in their own countries. There are many other reasons and most are politicised reactions to the west's political actions in the Muslim world. Rejection of political domination by the west also led to rejection of some western ideologies.

Cheers mate

Maurie Beck :)

Hello, hello, hello. Our paths do cross. I live in a time zone 12 hours ahead of EST too.

Thanks for that link on Mark Lilla's article, "The Politics of God". Absorbing piece and I printed it out. The points he made answers some and raises some questions for me.

I will be getting his book, "The Stillborn God: Religion, Politic and the Modern West". It will be a companion piece reading with Oliver Roy's "Secularism and Islam".

As Lilla's essay is not the topic here in On Faith, I will not go into too much on why the east-west/Islam-Christian discourse goes awry, but to give you some small points from a Muslim perspective on fundamental differences that tarnish real grasp of issues. The points are only the tip of the ice-berg, lightly made and deliberately scattered. You will have fun sorting them out.

There is no Muslim tradition of studying Christianity as Chistendom do since the west became aware of Islam. Specific Suras in the Qur'an state Muslims are not to question other believers on their God/s, and their be beliefs unto them.

While the church/churches regard Islam as as competing religion to be purged as a false one by way of centuries old "scholarly" studies on the Prophet, but not on God as believed by Muslims, Muslims regard Islam as a continuation of the revelations of God that don't necessarily supplant the Torah and Bible.

The Bible is more organised and edited. The Qur'an is not and remain as such since Caliph Uthman asked it be compiled into a book.

The Bible and the Qur'an itself started differently. The Bible with the Genesis. The Qur'an with Al Fatihah - an affirmation of God as Master of all and as guide to the Straight Path or the Right Path as in Suras of the Qur'an covering everything from rules of engagement in war, to status of women, to business contracts, to governance, to the mysteries of creation, to how justice is to be prevailed, to accusations of crime and punishments.

Muslims believe in many of the same Prophets, but there are fundamental differences in seemingly same stories of Adam, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. The Bible starts with the Genensis and contains a version on Adam that Muslims won't recognise and to be found in Suras deep within the Quran - no serpent, Eve not created from Adam's rib, Adam not made in God's image, nor did God Itself made clothes for Adam.

Western/church scholarship on Islam is infused with terms of references and terminologies used to describe Christian beliefs and theology. Salvation is through Christ in Christianity. Salvation is through the Right Path, the Straight Path in Islam to be undertaken individually and to be responsible for individually.

There is also the problem of translations of the Qur'an. Western translators are wont to translate God as Absolute where it really means God is Eternal.

When Muslims says Islam is perfect, s/he is quoting a Sura where God says It has perfected the religion for them. So, the Muslim worldview is, the Suras of the Qur'an are to be the basis of their private life and public affairs - morals and ethics, not just spiritual.

"Political" Islam is an expression in action of Suras calling for opposing transgressions where people are forced out of their lands and homes, and for opposing tryanny and oppresssion in governance. Throughout history, mostly against corrupt Muslim governance and invaders.

Ahmadinejad's words to Bush (who is a believing, praying, God invoking member of the People of the Book), is reflective of the Muslim view that justice on earth be sought and attained as God ordains through the Prophets and the Holy Texts. Shiite Muslims have a stronger theological tradition and belief in realising God's justice on earth. Ahmadinejad, perhaps, believe Bush is unjust with regard to Iran and was appealing to him to be more mindful of God that all believers of the Abrahamic share in common, well, apart from a slight innovation in Christianity on the Trinity of God.

As for the "Great Seperation" and the "opposite shore" that Lilla spoke of, that is real with language and issues defined by the west based on their own religious heritage, historical experiences and intellectual traditions. Of course for political and economic interests too. Since the eighties, the more aggressive Christian evangelical groups, who are competing with one another in the US for adherents, and more and more in the wider world, also took on Islam with a messianic vengeance as a belief, and an interest of Muslim countries with their passion for Christ and to spread the Good Word unhindered and freely.

The US demands foreign states not only to open up their countries for McDonalds and Jeep Cherokees, but also for Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons among others. Religion is also one of US biggest "soft" exports, with monies from adherents in other countries also going to the religious entities' HQ in the US. The churches in US resents, say, Saudi Arabia and China, for its "protectionist" policy against Christian denominations going there to evangelise.

The west, having forged its own Nicene Creed from an Eastern religion into its own, and instituting consequent dogmas and church organisation and hierachies, led to the western Englightenment and humanism as the reaction from the excesses of beliefs and actions of the church - from the rise of of Protestant denominations to demands for seperation of church and state. And to move away from salvation through Jesus towords Kingdom of God in the hereafter to man's salvation in the here and now. Western liberalism, and its call for rights of man; liberty, equality and fraternity etc, is thus, freedom from the dogmas and measures by church and/or state that restricts man's individual rights and free will and needs in the here and now.

The west, in the last two centuries, also came out with really, really bad ideas to escape from state oppression and church control still over the politics of their countries and their personal lives. Church still control lots of land right up to the 19th century. Hence, the impatience with which there is pursuit for man to be equal, there be equal opportunity. Alas there is also Marxism and fascism. Now, we have secularism, humanism and secular humanism. Those can be seen as perhaps, Marxism with heart abiding by democracy and promoting and protecting fundamental human rights.

And.... the Universal Declaration on Human Rights can be seen as a manisfesto for global compliance on principles that is the outcome of western convulations and grapplings with its own history, its Christian belief and the intellectual discourses to move away from certain untenable beliefs and actions repressing man's freedom of thought and actions. All countries, regardless of history and beliefs, are expected to comply by the principles set in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and are measured by it. The west measuring others by its terms and standards. Some countries, including Cuba and China, do resent that. Burma and North Korea don't give a hoot for it.

The Muslim world, including the Organisation of Islamic Conferences (OIC) do come out with its own Human Rights principles based on the Qur'an and Shariah. Muslims don't care for that as they are more concerned with areas of Shariah applications in their own countries, how their own governments governed and meet their needs as well as their individual rights. Most of all, they just want a decent living, a peaceful life which many of their governments failed to deliver.

Have a good weekend

Best regards as ever
J

Jihadist,

Actually, you've already posted on Irshad Manji in the past, so you don't have to bother. However, the essay by Mark Tilla is worth a read.

Jihadist, Norrie Hoyt, Islamist,

I've been trying to track you down for days. Below are two essays that I thought you might find interesting. One is an On Faith guest speaker, the other is a New York Times essay. The current thread clearly relates to the essay on Political Theology.

A guest speaker by the name of Irshad Manji wrote a post called Islam Needs an Age of Reason. She raises some very interesting points and I expected to see you post on the thread. Check it out.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/08/

On a similar vein is an amazingly good essay on the history of political theology and secularism, both in the west (Christianity and Judaism) and in Islam. The article speaks to the difficulty in getting Islam and the west to understand each other, something that Jihadist has touched upon in some of her posts. The essay offers some true insights. Below is the web address for this New York Times article by Mark Lilla, a professor of the humanities at Columbia University. The essay is adapted from his book “The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West,”.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/magazine/19Religion-t.html?em&ex=1187755200&en=f4382892905704f6&ei=5087%0A

Jihadist!

So here you were, finding a quiet spot to ask queestions. I've just read Charles Colson's and Cal Thomas' threads. It left me speechless.

Godfrey

I do have the same questions as my friend J on this. To use her choice of word here - platonic, better for ELCA to say, "in platonic same gender relationships". The original wording looks like a compromise text agreed upon by factions in ELCA.

Cheers

Dear Godfrey,

I forgot to add that I am also confused by the fact that the Bishops are supposedly to refrain from disciplining members of the clergy in such "mutual, chaste and faithful committed same gender relationships".

Does that apply only to those engaged in platonic relationships?

Does that mean Bishops have been disciplining members of the clergy who were only in platonic relationships but unfairly and unjustly accused of gay relationships?

Does that mean members of the clergy who do, in fact, engage in gay relationships, can still be disciplined by the Bishops.

This issue do confuse me as I don't know the background for the decision made by the Evangelical Lutheran Church on this - what happened and why.

Thank you and best regards
J

Godfrey,

Always good to see you. I had just finish reading (intermittently) the essays and threads of other panelists on this question.

I have a small question for clarification on English, specifically the phrase, "...mutual, chaste and faithful committed same-gender relations" being acceptable for members of the clergy.

That does not really sound like a ringing endorsement or acceptance of gay relations of a true sexual intimacy. Rather, with the word, "chaste", it seems more like a blessing of platonic relations that are close.

If that is so, well, surely all women and men, regardless of sexual inclinations, can say that they have "mutual, chaste and faithful committed same-gender relations" with their friends - male bonding, female bonding, even male-female bonding with no sexual intimacy. Straight men hug and kiss one another too, especially European and Middle Eastern men. Acceptable "chaste"?

The church wants to be seen to be open, and yet to be ambiguous?

The church wants to move forward incrementally in that, in time, the word "chaste" be excluded and the phrase then be "mutual and faithful committed same gender relations?" which leaves open the real nature of relations in all its forms and manifestations?

What, what and what was said, what is meant by the said church?

Thank you and best regards
J

Andrea:)

This question is more for us "religious" types to hair-split and tear our hairs out on. Am reading what "religious" panelists has to say and the subsequent reactions in their threads. You don't have to ask. And pray, don't tell.

Best regards as ever
J

Too bad Susan's post isn't linked to the main page.

Damned well said. When DADT went into effect, I was embarrassed as an American. It struck me as something school children would cook up.

I remember seeing an Army film from 1947 when the military was being racially integrated. It had a person posing as a racist soldier asking, "Am I supposed to change my beliefs? Am I supposed to change who I am?" (Quoted loosely from memory). "No," said the general, "we don't expect you to change who you are, but we expect you to give these people a chance. And we also expect you to obey orders and to maintain military discipline."

Why couldn't the same orders be given concerning homosexual soldiers?