« CVB Still Amps the Rockage | Main | Post Debate Hurry »

Bartlett for President!
Seriously, I can't get the court picks link to work - what did you link to?

Posted by: Kelly at October 13, 2004 11:37 AM

Do you think that would ever happen in real life? President or not, I think he would get shouted down in about two seconds.

Posted by: CM at October 13, 2004 11:43 AM

Kelly: I think it's fixed now, but if not, it's Katha Pollitt's column from the last edition of the The Nation. I had my posts set to convert HTML entities so it was turning the "&" sign into code. If the link in the post doesn't work, try pasting this into your browser:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041025&s=pollitt

CM: Well no, a President would probably never publicly humiliate a radio talk show host that way, but I don't know if he'd be shouted down. The scene was set in the White House at like a cocktail reception for talk radio hosts, so while there were lots of people looking on, it wasn't the kind of thing where anyone would be likely to shout anyone down. The room just stood in open-mouthed shock through the scene, which is probably close to what might happen in real life. What would also probably happen is a couple of weeks of howling from the radio host and her peers about how mean and ungodly the president is. Of course, that didn't happen in the show...

Posted by: ambimb at October 13, 2004 11:52 AM

It is indeed from "The Midterms", and watching MS throw off that much indignant annoyance, even if it would never happen in real life, is fun.

Posted by: kmsqrd at October 13, 2004 12:32 PM

There is some debate as to whether or not the Tyler quote you have was ever actually made. See Urban Legends Reference Page on the subject. Not that it really matters, because its a great quote... but I thought you'd like to know, there isn't consensus that the quote really is a quote, or something made up on the internet.

Posted by: Unreasonable Man at October 13, 2004 01:03 PM

Thanks UR! It's too bad if someone just made it up, but regardless of its historical accuracy, the quote describes a possibility that seems worth keeping in mind about now.

Posted by: ambimb at October 13, 2004 01:53 PM

I got the impression that no one really liked that radio show host anyway.

"*That's* how I beat him."

LOVE that episode.

Posted by: em at October 13, 2004 03:55 PM

Hi, it's me again, your conservative reader. :-)

In regards to the Bible and homosexuality, what the above portion from the West Wing does is set up a straw man.

There is no mention of the exegetical and hermeneutical principals that guide the ultimate application of Scripture to the life of the Church. One question, among others, that one must ask when dealing with the passage quoted in the post is, how does one separate the legal and moral portions of the Levitical law? Some wrongly associate a "literal" interpretation with a thoughtless one. Great minds have wrestled with the Scriptural text for many years and come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a sin. The episode you quoted also states, "While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club." This reinforces the idea that those who take a "literal" interpretation of the Scriptural text must be ignorant. It is easy to make someone look ignorant when you set up a straw man.

Further, this straw man also ignores other portions of the Bible.

See the account of Sodom and Gommorah in Genesis.

See Romans 1:26-27: "God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

See 1 Corinthian 6:9-10. "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Can a reasonable mind reach the conclusion that homosexual behavior is wrong? I think so. Why should morality not guide public policy? What sort of law would be have if the moral principles that formed it were deemed of no value? Further, there is evidence from the social sciences that homosexual behavior is bad for a society, and bad for individuals. Unfortunately, many people start with a bunch of a priori assumptions, such as one is born homosexual, and never allow those assumptions to be challenged. (A prior means existing in the mind before, and independent of, experience). Evidence that suggests homosexuality is wrong, must be wrong itself because homosexuality can't be wrong. Mental health professionals who stand for the proposition that homosexual conduct is unhealthy conduct must be quacks, because homosexual behavior is perfectly healthy. With this approach, nothing contrary to the prevalent views is taken seriously.

Here is the real question. Who should decide in regards to issues like this: judges or the legislature? If reasonable minds can differ, perhaps something like the definition of marriage should be left up to the legislature.

FYI - I would like to see a marriage amendment to the effect of something like the following. "The right of the people to define marriage through the legislative power of the States shall not be infringed."

If Kerry becomes President, and appoints justices that empower the people, then good for him.

"The Courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to excercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequences would be the substitution fo their pleasure for that of the legislative body." - The Federalist No. 78

BTW - Thanks for the opportunity to express my views here. There are some issues on my blog that I avoid for the most part. This is one of them. What I do write is usually pretty neutral.

Posted by: Jeremy Richey at October 13, 2004 05:05 PM

A clarification I said: "What I do write is usually pretty neutral." That refers to those issues I avoid. On other issues, I am not neutral.

Posted by: Jeremy Richey at October 13, 2004 05:36 PM

Jeremy:

You might as well give it up. I criticized Ambimb's exclusion of the New Testament when he used the same sort of argument as a 1L. If you're dead set against an argument, you're probably not going to make your opponent's best argument for him.

The old trick of judging Christianity solely by the Old Testament is hardly news, and generally avoided by those who make serious attempts at theology. Of course, the West Wing doesn't exist to do such things, and if Bartlett had made that speech to anybody minimally versed in church doctrine--and not handcuffed by liberal screenwriters in their reply--he'd have looked like a dolt.

Posted by: A. Rickey at October 13, 2004 07:49 PM

For god's sake (notice I used a lowercase g, so I'm not taking our lords name in vain) it's a TV show. If you don't like the West Wing, fine... but it's still a great scene.

And I disagree with Jeremy on this one... I don't think we should have any amendment regarding marriage in the Constitution. I know this is where Christian Conservatives and I differ... but I don't think this is a morality issue (unless you count discrimination and denying someone of happiness), it's a civil liberty/basic human right's issue. Remember, slavery was considered sanctioned by the Bible back in the day... but I think most of us can agree that was a bad interpretation. If history has taught us anything, it should be that denying someone a basic human right is not cool, and should not be allowed. Being able to love who you want is a basic human right... and being able to marry that person is a natural correlary.

Posted by: Unreasonable Man at October 13, 2004 09:49 PM

i love the west wing. i'd vote for Bartlett any day over the two kooks on tv now.

Posted by: monica at October 13, 2004 09:50 PM

Though there is quite a bit I could say here, I promised Ambimb I would be nice. SO let me just make one point that touches on the issue of the "exegetical and hermeneutical principals [sic] that guide the ultimate application of Scripture," namely establishing an authoritative text.

Your 1 Corinthians quote makes use of the word "homosexual," which would seem to make the meaning pretty straight forward. Except for the fact that "homosexual" is a word of recent invention in the English language; the OED lists the earliest reference to it in English as 1892. Further, in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, from which I surmise you are taking your quotes, you will note that the word "homosexual" in the 1 Corinthians passage is footnoted to indicate that "two Greek words are rendered by this expression." That these two words could be elided as such indicates something of the mutability/instability/historical production of the text even as it indicates that fallible human hands have more to do with its shaping than the notion of a morality based on scriptural revelation would concede. That the version of the Bible used as the basis of such a morality might in fact matter is further evidenced by the same passage in the King James Bible, which I just happen to have on hand. There the passage in question reads "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

So, in answer to the question "Can a reasonable mind reach the conclusion that homosexual behavior is wrong?," I would have to say no, not on this basis. Rather than make a judgment properly reserved for the Lord, and especially one made on the basis of a text whose authority is, at the very least, dubious, I'd prefer to follow the teaching of Luke 10:25-37 and its other iterations in Matthew 22:34-40 and Mark 12:28-34.

Belief alone is not sufficient. Rather our belief need find realization in our action as, to quote the RSV Mark "to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." Or, if you prefer the King James "and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." The parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke emphasizes the active nature of love as much as it highlights the fact that our neighbor is anyone who needs our compassion and not, like the priest and the Levite who pass by, our judgment.

Posted by: Famous P. at October 14, 2004 12:06 AM

Anthony is probably correct that you won't get the best Biblical arguments from me. I apparently have a soft spot for taking potshots at the Old Testament. Sorry about that. I understand that's a little irresponsible and all too easy to do. At the same time, I'm w/Famous P in thinking that the Bible is a text, constructed by humans, evolved over time, and used by different factions for various ends -- many good, many bad. That makes it difficult for me to rely on it for a question about homosexuality or gay marriage, or any number of other issues. However, I certainly respect those who feel differently and who choose to try to conform their lives and views more closely with what they interpret as the Bible's dictates. Still, I honestly don't understand how a reasonable interpretatiion of the Bible that I grew up reading could really lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong and that homosexuals should be punished. Again, as Famous P points out, how is such a reading consistent with the so-called "golden rule"?

Specifically to Jeremy: I really do appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned effort to explain your view on this. Here's a n experiment: In the paragraph above after you quote from a version of Corinthians, what happens when you substitute "racial equality" for "homosexuality," "homosexual behavior," and "homosexual conduct"? Does the reasoning still hold, or would this be another straw man?

I don't have time for a more complete response, but let me say again that I really do value and appreciate thoughtful responses from people who care about the issues they're posting about. Thank you all above for respecting the different opinions expressed, and if anyone would like to continue this discussion, let's be sure we do so in the same respectful and reasonable way.

Posted by: ambimb at October 14, 2004 08:55 AM

Famous P.,

Obviously, you have some background in Biblical matters. I don't have the time to start with a parsing of the original Greek, work my way through the entire Bible from beginning to end, etc.

For those of you that don't know, Christian biblical scholarship has been around a long time, and there has been much ink spilled on many issues. The Bible is a made up of many different books written across a span of thousands of years. The books are diverse in their historical and cultural backgrounds. The books are diverse in their authors. Biblical exegesis and interpretation is hard work. Trying to fully lay out an argument here would be way too time consuming for me. Famous P., would you agree that some scholars have done some serious wrestling with the text and arrived at the conclusion that homosexuality is a sin?

Loving your neighbor means more than not offending others. Loving others means helping people turn from their sins. Now, obviously, we disagree on whether homosexual behavior is a sin.

I apologize for my grammatical an other mistakes. I don't do much proofreading in comments. I should have used principle and not principal.

Posted by: Jeremy Richey at October 14, 2004 12:00 PM

Jeremy, I agree with your definition of helping your neighbor, but I also think there comes a time when you've said your peace and helped as much as people will let you. When that time comes, loving your neighbor becomes accepting him/her regardless of their sin and allowing them to live their life as they choose. It's hard when you see people going down a road I wouldn't choose, but my charge is to love them anyway. To me, this charge applies whatever the sin.

Posted by: kmsqrd at October 14, 2004 01:31 PM

Well, Jeremy, if you read my post, you will see that I state quite plainly that no, on the basis of scriptural evidence I can not conclude that homosexuality is a sin because, as I tried to demonstrate, the authority of scripture, as an unstable text, is questionable. Some people have come to that conclusion, yes, that is true.

But how should I judge amongst these people? For sake of convenience, I'll use the RSV here (and that I should be able to choose God's word for the sake of convenience says a lot in itself). Matthew 7:15 warns us "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." Lacking clear and decisive evidence, which is to say evidence based on the original language (in many cases NOT Greek, which is simply the language that some of the books were transcribed into. Their authority derives from the fact that they are the earliest examples of the texts we have, something that should not be confused with their being the original manuscripts), to make a judgment about what constitutes a sin as if authorized by scripture is not only to ignore the status of the text but to usurp a judgment that is rightly reserved to the Lord.

As fallible humans, our judgment in such matters as good and evil, sin and virtue, is sure to be faulty. In John 8:1-11, Jesus admonishes those who would stone the adulterer saying "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." When the crowd disperses in the realization that they are all sinners "Jesus looked up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again." Perhaps because as Matthew 5:27-30 argues, the real sin lies not so much in the act but in our heart.

This is why we are admonished by Jesus not to judge our fellow being (Luke 6:37-42, Matthew 7:1-5). Rather, our virtue will show in the actions of our being. My favorite is Luke 6:43-49 "For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. "Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you? Every one who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep, and laid the foundation upon rock; and when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it had been well built. But he who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation; against which the stream broke, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great." You can find pretty much the same thing in Matthew 7: 15-29 as well.

Build your house on the rock of action, out of the effort it takes to reach that solid stone of the abundant heart, not on the shifting sands of a faulty text and a fallible ability to judge. Indeed, in this light I see the failure of the texts to be authoritative as a test the Lord has given us to interpret the scripture the Lord's hand has writ on the parchment of our hearts, not on the paper beneath a merely human hand. Good and bad obtains not in the letter but the spirit. After all, Jesus teaches us "as one who had authority, and not as their scribes." (Matthew 7: 29).

Posted by: Famous P. at October 14, 2004 02:25 PM