Scanning the news, and my opinions about it.
In no way do I consider myself a news junkie, but here are some of the stories in the news that caught my eye this afternoon.
Brad Delp, 55, lead singer of the rock band Boston died on March 9th of an apparent suicide, according to his family. Delp and his family lived in Atkinson, NH, a small town on the Massachusetts/New Hampshire border. This is another sad story of one dying relatively young. It'll be interesting to see what the autopsy report will show as the official cause of death. It's also a selfish thing to do, leaving your family like that.
A perspective on the US Housing Market. Oh well, I'm not ready to buy a house yet, anyway.
See, AG, there's hope for you and any political aspirations that you may have. All you have to do to run for political office is do what this guy apparently did. Get rid of every public statement you've made in regards to your atheism, and wait until you get elected before revealing your true position.
Should General Pace have expressed his opinion publicly, openly and as bluntly as he did about homosexuals serving in the military? Absolutely he should have and I applaud him for sharing his opinion and not apologizing for it. More people should be willing to go out on a limb and express their views, even if they are not popular. Now before any of you paint me with the wrong size brush, let me choose it for myself. I think homosexuality is immoral and wrong because that's what the Bible teaches and goes against the natural order of things. Does this mean that I think homosexuals should be banned from serving in the military? No. I totally support the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that the US Military currently holds because that's really the best policy for both sides. Someone who is qualified to serve in the military and has the desire to do so should be allowed to do exactly that, no matter what their sexual orientation may be, just like someones skin color should not prohibit them from serving if that's what they want to do. Quite frankly, I don't really want or need to know what someone else's sexual orientation is or is not.
Count me among the 79% of American Christians who believe in the second coming of Jesus and in the 20% of that group of Christians who believe that the rapture is an imminent event that will happen during their lifetime. Imminent meaning that there are no signs that will precede this event before it happens. But this doesn't mean that Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible ought to live with their heads in the clouds, as some atheists think we do. Instead, Christians should have a heart of compassion for reaching the lost and a desire for evangelism, sharing and spreading the good news of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible. Like it or not, believe it or not, God's program will happen with or without cooperation or permission and on His schedule and time line, whether we are ready or not.
Let's hope this new Palestinian government works. I still support Israel and their long term God given right to ownership of that land. But warring with Hamas and Fatah doesn't benefit anybody. And infighting between Hamas and Fatah is equally unbeneficial for everyone. Since neither Israel or the Palestinians are going anywhere, they should try to coexist.
posted by Tim @ 18:06
12 Comments:
oh green, there are so many things i want to say, but I can tell I'm going to run out of energy before i finish.
Yes, tehre is ONE member of the house that doesn't believe in fairy tales. Good for him. But considering that non-beleiveers make up approximate 10% (a conservative number) of the population, we really should see over 50 members of the house and senate express being from this demographic. Sadly, it's not the case. And incidently, it wasn't just "wait until you get elected before revealing your true position", it was wait until you're elected and have served for over 30 years!
The army dude spouting hatred: sure, he has a right to share his views on things, just as you are doing here. However when he does so as a ranking member of the military, it's a just a touch different than him doing it as a private citizen, don't you think? Serving members of the military aren't supposed to speak publicly against the policies of the organisation.
As to the whole "goes against the natural order of things" argument, I thought you were too smart for that kind of argument. It's perfectly natural (in both humans and other animals). The fact that you have a moral argument against it - your religion opposes it - hey, that's fine, but don't try and say it's 'not natural'. Driving cars isn't natural. Working nights isn't natural (at least for humans). Open heart surgery isn't natural. Same sex attraction is.
Incidently, the biblical injunction against homosexuality is in that book by levi-whatshisname - the same bit that prohibits wearing clothes of mixed fabrics and eating pork. You know - the one that whenever i bring up these examples you say 'oh those rules don't apply any more'.
On the don't ask, don't tell policy. I suppose that we can accept that as a policy. But let's apply it to people's religious opinions, too. After all:
... that's really the best policy for both sides. Someone who is qualified to serve in the milirary and has the desire to do so should be allowed to do exactly that, no matter what their religious orientation may be, just like someones skin color should not prohibit them from serving if that's what they want to do. Quite frankly, I don't really want or need to know what someone else's religion is or is not.
I'll support don't ask don't tell for sexual orientation if you support it for religion.
On israel/palestine: you can claim a 'god-given right' all you like. If someone doesn't beleive in your god, it's not going to convince any one.
sigh ... feel free to ignore what I've said and tell me I've got it all wrong etc. I'm used to it by now.
AG: Yes, there is one member of congress who is an avowed atheist. And perhaps there are more, who knows? Hey I said there was hope for you, but I didn't say it was a great hope. Oh well...
If you heard his remarks, you would see that they were not given in a hateful manner. He was asked, point blank in a television interview, what his views were on the subject. What, you think he should have lied about his views? Oh, that's good - a public official or high military officer lying. Like we haven't seen that before.
Absolutely not!! Same sex attraction is unnatural. It's not the way humans were designed at all. You have two kids, so you know how well that works. -- For example, that's why a plug is called male and an outlet is called female, because they fit togther and were specifically designed that way. Two plugs arent going to make an electrical appliance run by themselves. Two outlets are useless without something plugged into them.
Incidentally, I'd love to see the data that shows that same sex attraction is common in animals, when it has no evolutionary benefit in propagating the species, as I believe you've said to me before.
And true, the Biblical prohibition against that is first found in Leviticus 18 but it is also taught elsewhere in the Bible, especially in the New Testament and has not been repealed. The rule where eating pork was prohibited was originally for Jewish folks but was rescinded when Jesus declared all foods "clean".
Aaah but applying the don't ask, don't tell policy is not the best way to go when it comes to religious faith. All religions that I know of have a goal of increasing their numbers in some form, because they think that what they believe is right, obviously (and I include myself there too).
So, in your opinion, is there a better policy for the military to adapt than "don't ask, don't tell"?
on Israel/Palestine - I'm really not trying to convince anyone here. In the grand scheme, that land is Israel's. But I know that you agree that all of the bloodshed and killing in that region is counterproductive and not in anyone's best interest, so for the time being they should find a way to get along.
But they won't, sadly. Any truces negotiated between Israel and Palestine will only end up being temporary, as history has shown.
secret: Thanks for taking the time to comment on my blog. New commenters are always welcome.
I find it interesting that you're OK with anyone serving in the military, since killing people is forbidden in the Ten Commandments and Jesus' sermons.
Militaries are a necessary part of any nation and human government. Ancient Israel had a military force - and they are God's people.
Even Jesus acknowleges in his teaching that before the end there will be wars and rumors of wars, which require some sort of military.
"Absolutely not!! Same sex attraction is unnatural. It's not the way humans were designed at all."
Really? First of all, you're assuming there was a 'design' but I won't go into that here. For that matter we weren't 'designed' to fly, but i suppose you have no aversion to using airpanes, even though nowhere in the bible does godman say it's ok.
"You have two kids, so you know how well that works."
Yes, but i also know that for those of us who are sufficently evolved, sex is not just about procreation.
"that's why a plug is called male and an outlet is called female..."
Even for you, this is a most silly argument. Yes, I've familiar with the phraseology, but I'd argue that humans are a little bit more than electrical appliances.
On the other hand, let's use your analogy here for a moment. If someone choses not to be sexually active (or simply feels no sexual attraction for anyone), does that make them as 'useless' as two outlets?
Incidently, you referring to women who do not have male partners as 'useless' is a touch misogynistic. Whether that was your intent or not.
"Incidentally, I'd love to see the data that shows that same sex attraction is common in animals"
Google it yourself. You like to do research. I just googled the phrase 'same sex attraction in animals' and got some good results.
"Aaah but applying the don't ask, don't tell policy is not the best way to go when it comes to religious faith."
But you don't really say why, other than 'we want to get more people for our cause'. Shouldn't a soldier be able to concentrate on his job without worrying that the guy in the next foxhole is going to preach to him when he should be trying to make sure they don't get shot?
"So, in your opinion, is there a better policy for the military to adapt than "don't ask, don't tell"?"
Gee, i don't know - how about the policy that almost every military in the western world (including most of the US's closest allies) use: allowing people to serve openly, no matter their sexuality. Not surprisingly, England has been doing this for a LONG time and it has had no negative impact whatsoever.
"Absolutely not!! Same sex attraction is unnatural. It's not the way humans were designed at all."
Really? First of all, you're assuming there was a 'design' but I won't go into that here.
Of course there was a design. To say that there is not is just willful blindness. Humans didn't get to be the way they are coincidentally. All of that wonderful natural selection and variation you love to talk about is accounted for in the DNA of every creature. Yep, all possibilities for every possible survival necessity accounted for marvelously in the coded DNA strands without any mutations necessary to add information (mutations by the way can't add information, only corrupt what's currently there).
And where did this DNA information come from in the first place? The presence of information implies intelligence, which implies design. Information just doesn't materialize out of nowhere, no matter how much time you allow. There's no way around it as far as I can see. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck then what you have is a duck. So call it that and be done with it. Your Oxham's Razor argument fits in well here. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.
And yes, we've had this discussion before...
For that matter we weren't 'designed' to fly, but i suppose you have no aversion to using airpanes, even though nowhere in the bible does godman say it's ok.
No, we weren't designed to fly, which is why we needed to invent the airplane - because we weren't designed with wings. But last I checked, humans come equipped with all the natural tools they need for sex.
"You have two kids, so you know how well that works."
Yes, but i also know that for those of us who are sufficently evolved, sex is not just about procreation.
This is true for humans because we can enjoy all of the emotional and pleasurable benefits of sex aside from procreation. But I really don't think animals have sex simply for pleasure or becasue they enjoy it. They do it instinctively to reproduce.
"that's why a plug is called male and an outlet is called female..."
Even for you, this is a most silly argument. Yes, I've familiar with the phraseology, but I'd argue that humans are a little bit more than electrical appliances.
Of course it's a silly argument but it got my point across, which was its sole purpose.
On the other hand, let's use your analogy here for a moment. If someone choses not to be sexually active (or simply feels no sexual attraction for anyone), does that make them as 'useless' as two outlets?
Incidently, you referring to women who do not have male partners as 'useless' is a touch misogynistic. Whether that was your intent or not.
Again, it was solely an illustration, which served it's purpose.
"Incidentally, I'd love to see the data that shows that same sex attraction is common in animals"
Google it yourself. You like to do research. I just googled the phrase 'same sex attraction in animals' and got some good results.
I will someday. I've added it to my list of things to do at some point. There are more pressing issues for me to attend to though.
"Aaah but applying the don't ask, don't tell policy is not the best way to go when it comes to religious faith."
But you don't really say why, other than 'we want to get more people for our cause'. Shouldn't a soldier be able to concentrate on his job without worrying that the guy in the next foxhole is going to preach to him when he should be trying to make sure they don't get shot?
Of course - there's a time and place for such things and discretion depends on the situation. And it would seem to me that in a circumstance where life or death is at stake it would be comforting to know where your soul would go after death.
Perhaps one of the guys in the foxhole is worried that they might die in the foxhole and makes a random comment about being worried about it. So, amid the shooting, the religious person shares his/her beliefs hoping to reassure his/her partner, which may help them concentrate more on the situation at hand instead of worrying about dying.
"So, in your opinion, is there a better policy for the military to adapt than "don't ask, don't tell"?"
Gee, i don't know - how about the policy that almost every military in the western world (including most of the US's closest allies) use: allowing people to serve openly, no matter their sexuality. Not surprisingly, England has been doing this for a LONG time and it has had no negative impact whatsoever.
Good for England. And in an ideal world being open about your sexuality should be the way to go. But then again in an ideal world it really shouldn't be an issue at all. But we do not live in an ideal world and (I'm guessing) many people feel self-conscious about their sexuality and talking about it choose to keep that area of their lives private instead of being required to disclose it.
OK, Jesus refers to wars, but that doesn't mean he approves of them. Since he was/is such a peacenik, would he not be ashamed of those of his followers who turn a blind eye to the reality of war or who treat it as a necessity?
I'd imagine Jesus wouldn't approve of war in general, but since he knows all about the sinful human nature - realizes that it's part of our makeup and that its going to happen.
Plus, the culmination of the future seven year tribulation will end with Armageddon, a conflict so huge and truly global in scope that it will make the first two world wars seem like a fistfight between family members.
Which brings me to one of my many issues with Christianity...the almost Norse-like final battle.
"This is true for humans because we can enjoy all of the emotional and pleasurable benefits of sex aside from procreation. But I really don't think animals have sex simply for pleasure or becasue they enjoy it. They do it instinctively to reproduce."
Off the top of my head, it's been well known for a long time that dolphins have sex for pleasure, not just for procreation.
and in case you do get the time to have a squiz -
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4352011/
These two are quite good on the homosexual sex in animals bit. The top one is the more thesis like, the bottom one has cute penguins in tuxes which is always a winner. ; )
On another point - your contention that partnering in humans is just about fitting sockets doesn't actually convey much of a point.
If human bonding was as simple as "if the socket fits you must commit... to making babies" there would be no reason for people to remain in couples after they'd actually had children. Once menopause or erectile dysfuntion hits *bam* they should both be out of there like a dot. But... (stranger and stranger) procreation doesn't actually govern peoples emotional connection to others.
Ditto for when one or both partners can't actually have children. Does this mean they instantly lose all attraction for eachother? If so, I doubt that little blue pill would be as prevalent or well known as it is.
"Yep, all possibilities for every possible survival necessity accounted for marvelously in the coded DNA strands without any mutations necessary to add information (mutations by the way can't add information, only corrupt what's currently there)."
Excuse me, since when did you become an expert on evolutionary biology? Or did you just read that from some creationist website? It's demonstrably false. To give you just one example, many people possess a mutation that allows them to digest milk beyond the age of weaning. In a majority of people, the gene is no longer expressed beyond that age and therefore they are unable to synthesise the enzyme used to break down lactose, but the mutation was favoured by natural selection in some parts of the world where pastoralism was common, and where famines often forces people to drink milk. Those who thrived best in such conditions were able to pass on that mutation. This is classical natural selection, and it shows how a mutation can be favoured because it confers some beneficent effect.
No, it's simply not true that "every possible survival situation" was encoded into our DNA. In the book "The Extended Phenotype" by Richard Dawkins, there is a chapter called "Constraints on perfection". I encourage you to read it.
"Of course there was a design. To say that there is not is just willful blindness."
In a very real sense, you're right. There IS design, lots of it. But the process that gave rise to this design is itself not intelligent. Natural selection is a cumulative, sifting process that preserves some outputs and discards others. What we get is the illusion of intelligent design. Of course, for a long time this was the standard "explanation", but since Darwin came along it is now useless.
"The simplest answer is usually the correct one."
I agree, except that you're implying that God is a "simple answer". Something as monstrously complex as a deity that can read minds, answer prayers, create universes and design life has to be at least as complex as anything in the known universe and needs an explanation in its own right. For this reason, saying "God did it" explains precisely nothing. Evolution, on the other hand, is one of the most parsimonious explanations available, and it actually works (it has worked for decades, and will continue to work. And as the planet faces more and more problems, understanding evolution will become ever more important).
As to the military gay thing, General Pace's first priorty is to the secular republic of the United States, not his religion. His personal views are his own business; it isn't for him to alienate loyal members of the military just because of his personal religious convictions. I find the God-soaked politics of the US quite revolting, and we see religion doing what religion does best: dividing people and distorting social relations.
Post a Comment
<< Home