I'm no biblical scholar... but I recognize exaggeration and cover-up when I see it.
The story of Lot in Genesis (wikipedia) is about the nephew of Abraham. Because of quarrels between Abraham's and Lot's shepards, Lot moves his family and business to Zoar (which is soon destroyed along Sodom & Gomorrah and two other cities). Lot persuades angels to spend the night in his house instead of on the street... and when the depraved of the town came to his door to 'meet' (original word sometimes translates as 'rape' apparent) the angels... Lot offers them his daughters instead. The townsfolk weren't interested. Hmm. In thanks, the angels warn Lot the city would be destroyed, and they should flee and not look back. He flees with his two daughters and wife. The wife looks back, turns to pillar of salt. Later his daughters get their father drunk, sleep with him and get pregnant, giving birth to sons. Sons that later become patriarchs of the nations of Moab and Ammon.
Um. Riiiiiiight.
How about this interpretation:
Lot moves into a new town and sets up business pimping out attractive young men and women. Not content with that, he and his hustlers engaged in theft and other illicit activities. Conflict and trouble with the authorities soon follows. Lot's crew sets fire the town and escapes during the chaos. There likely was no wife to turn into a pillar of salt. Lot retires in the mountains with two of his prostitutes. The greedy young hustlers decide to move on to another city, where the cycle of theft and arson continues until they're caught or disband.
And that bit about Lot's daughters' incest fathering the patriarchs of Moab and Ammon? Just mudslinging against neighbor nations.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
In the news
I couldn't watch the whole thing, it was just awful.
California Supreme Court appears likely to uphold gay marriage ban - from the Mercury News - in brief, Ken Star (defending prop 8) was slick and articulate.... Christoper Krueger, the senior deputy assistant attorney general (challenging prop 8) was incoherent and acting like he'd never spoke in public before.
Justice Joyce Kennard nailed why they'll likely not decide in favor of the challenge: "opponents of the measure would have the court choose between 'two rights ... the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change the constitution as they see fit"
Which goads me to ask, what the fricking hell do we have justices for if they will not stand up against changes to law and constitution that are UNJUST.
Without the direct involvement of the judicial branch of government, the democratic process is no better than a lynch mob with a paper trail.
California Supreme Court appears likely to uphold gay marriage ban - from the Mercury News - in brief, Ken Star (defending prop 8) was slick and articulate.... Christoper Krueger, the senior deputy assistant attorney general (challenging prop 8) was incoherent and acting like he'd never spoke in public before.
Justice Joyce Kennard nailed why they'll likely not decide in favor of the challenge: "opponents of the measure would have the court choose between 'two rights ... the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change the constitution as they see fit"
Which goads me to ask, what the fricking hell do we have justices for if they will not stand up against changes to law and constitution that are UNJUST.
Without the direct involvement of the judicial branch of government, the democratic process is no better than a lynch mob with a paper trail.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Magic and Betrayal
Bear with me as I bring this up... again... to say something a little different.
CA's supreme court is in the process of reviewing the legality of Prop 8... and my mind is drawn back to the topic.
First off, a very minor point, I marvel at the 'magic trick' being pulled by the dogmatic types. They cry out that their religious freedoms are being threatened... and demand censorship of all things gay. Imposing religious oppression is not one of the freedoms enshrined in the constitution last I checked.
The Gung-ho Prop 8 supporters are fighting to preserve their right to pretend that homosexuality is some exotic addictive sinful vice like heroin. The moderates, (people that likely voted for Prop 8 on a whim), are more likely to feel that they just don't want homosexuality paraded about in front of children. (I wouldn't want children seeing heterosexuality in practice either.)
Ask any straight guy what they think of two guys having sex, and they'll probably look disgusted. A reaction not unlike the one you'd get if you asked them what they think of their own aging parents having sex, actually. Funny that.
The cornerstone issue for me is this: Appeasing the homophobes by pretending to be straight is wrong.
Pretending is, at best, a temporary thing. The truth inevitably comes out. When it does, people feel betrayed, lied to, respect and trust severed, and in some cases marriages ruined.) The usual daytime soap drama... but with real lives destroyed instead.
In a world where people talk freely about their wives or husbands... gays remain silent and pretend to be single (if they aren't)... or claim to have opposite-sex partner (if they don't). Lying to friends, family, co-workers puts one constantly at risk of exposure, blackmail, extortion... even attack and retribution.
Not to mention the self-loathing that results in leading a duplicitous life.
The lying and betrayal of trust done by those that feel they must pretend to be normal is (in my strongly held opinion) THE root cause for all the other self-destructive things attributed to the so-called "gay lifestyle".
So, pretending that sexual orientation is "no one's business"... or relying on "Don't ask don't tell" merely makes matters worse, not just for gays but for the people who will some day find out they were lied to.
And... without State and Federal recognition of gay marriage, people will be compelled to lie to be successful in society... and others will continue to have the "Freedom" to blackmail and attack them merely for being different.
Not necessarily the kinds of freedoms our founding fathers had in mind either.
CA's supreme court is in the process of reviewing the legality of Prop 8... and my mind is drawn back to the topic.
First off, a very minor point, I marvel at the 'magic trick' being pulled by the dogmatic types. They cry out that their religious freedoms are being threatened... and demand censorship of all things gay. Imposing religious oppression is not one of the freedoms enshrined in the constitution last I checked.
The Gung-ho Prop 8 supporters are fighting to preserve their right to pretend that homosexuality is some exotic addictive sinful vice like heroin. The moderates, (people that likely voted for Prop 8 on a whim), are more likely to feel that they just don't want homosexuality paraded about in front of children. (I wouldn't want children seeing heterosexuality in practice either.)
Ask any straight guy what they think of two guys having sex, and they'll probably look disgusted. A reaction not unlike the one you'd get if you asked them what they think of their own aging parents having sex, actually. Funny that.
The cornerstone issue for me is this: Appeasing the homophobes by pretending to be straight is wrong.
Pretending is, at best, a temporary thing. The truth inevitably comes out. When it does, people feel betrayed, lied to, respect and trust severed, and in some cases marriages ruined.) The usual daytime soap drama... but with real lives destroyed instead.
In a world where people talk freely about their wives or husbands... gays remain silent and pretend to be single (if they aren't)... or claim to have opposite-sex partner (if they don't). Lying to friends, family, co-workers puts one constantly at risk of exposure, blackmail, extortion... even attack and retribution.
Not to mention the self-loathing that results in leading a duplicitous life.
The lying and betrayal of trust done by those that feel they must pretend to be normal is (in my strongly held opinion) THE root cause for all the other self-destructive things attributed to the so-called "gay lifestyle".
So, pretending that sexual orientation is "no one's business"... or relying on "Don't ask don't tell" merely makes matters worse, not just for gays but for the people who will some day find out they were lied to.
And... without State and Federal recognition of gay marriage, people will be compelled to lie to be successful in society... and others will continue to have the "Freedom" to blackmail and attack them merely for being different.
Not necessarily the kinds of freedoms our founding fathers had in mind either.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
/mute ... /ignore ... /ban4life
Firefox, or Google's Chrome browser need a plug in that silently omits any blog posting that includes any reference to Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly. (like this post for example)
So tired of blog-o-sphere being regularly swamped with the latest outrage from these boring old hate-mongers. I'd add Kathy Griffin to the list of negative-attention-whores... but she delivers 'the funny' at least sometimes.
So tired of blog-o-sphere being regularly swamped with the latest outrage from these boring old hate-mongers. I'd add Kathy Griffin to the list of negative-attention-whores... but she delivers 'the funny' at least sometimes.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Globlal WARming Hoax
Stumbled across some random post stating that arctic melting is proceeding faster than scientists predicted, and saw, rather to my surprise... number of 'global warming' denier trolls spewing illogical irrelevant drivel in response. Are these people paid to spread doubt? Is it some religious conviction that drives them? Are they so enamored of their hummers and top-of-the-food-chain wasteful consumerist habits that they fear eco-friendly policies will threaten their freedom to trash the planet?
Who knows.
To use an analogy... it isn't the driving around at unsafe speeds that kills you... it's the loss of control and the collision with an unavoidable object.
The climate IS changing, and rapidly. Ice that has been carbon dated back centuries ago is melting away, this isn't some "natural cycle" or that ice would have melted off in a previous cycle and wouldn't be there to measure today.
The question isn't "are we causing this" it's "where are things going at this rate?"
As the global climate begins to spin out of control, are there big nasty immovable obstacles it's going to run into? What kind of planet are we going to have 50 years from now? How many stronger storms and record extremes can we withstand before it starts causing problems for the industries that feed the rest of us?
And the deniers? Probably conservative seniors who still believe they'll see The Rapture before they kick the bucket, so who don't care if the world burns.
If I ran the world... Deniers would be denied air conditioning in the summer. See if that gets them to change their tune.
Who knows.
To use an analogy... it isn't the driving around at unsafe speeds that kills you... it's the loss of control and the collision with an unavoidable object.
The climate IS changing, and rapidly. Ice that has been carbon dated back centuries ago is melting away, this isn't some "natural cycle" or that ice would have melted off in a previous cycle and wouldn't be there to measure today.
The question isn't "are we causing this" it's "where are things going at this rate?"
As the global climate begins to spin out of control, are there big nasty immovable obstacles it's going to run into? What kind of planet are we going to have 50 years from now? How many stronger storms and record extremes can we withstand before it starts causing problems for the industries that feed the rest of us?
And the deniers? Probably conservative seniors who still believe they'll see The Rapture before they kick the bucket, so who don't care if the world burns.
If I ran the world... Deniers would be denied air conditioning in the summer. See if that gets them to change their tune.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Recent Citings...
My new device in SecondLife had a wonderful mention on the NPIRL blog this week...
And I was intereviewed for a very an extremely flattering French article at Territoire-Digital.com (Machine-translated English Version)
(and even if you don't care much about SecondLife, the pics on both are very nicely done and worth a peek =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)