Classical Values :: What's good for me is good for thee?

October 30, 2005

What's good for me is good for thee?

In the spirit of Sunday, I thought I'd respond to a thoughtful comment -- to this post -- left by Enrique Cardova. Here's the comment:

"This is another example of what I said earlier -- that "attempts to discourage something can nonetheless glamorize it just as much attempts to encourage it."

True but the opposite effect often works and works better in the long run. Parents who discourage their children from emulating the promiscous sex, language, clothing and violent behavior advocated in "gangsta" rap or "suicide" rock, no doubt create a "forbidden fruit" effect, but nontheless, such discouragment is quite effective in general (there is no 100% perfection anywhere) in protecting their children from such negatives. In fact, the parent who fails to actively discourage these negatives will soon be a very sad and cash poor parent.

I have no argument with that, except I was talking about government, not parenting. Parenting strikes me as a little trickier, because children are in need of parental supervision and discipline. How to do that, and how much of it to do, is up to the parents. They're the ones who had the kids, and they're the ones who should draw the lines. Some would draw a hard line (I probably would), but others wouldn't. Unless a parent is criminally careless or abusive, it is not the government's business.

The major buyers of "gangsta" for example are white youth, but at the end of the day, after the irritating music is turned down, most white parents will have effectively applied the brakes to those youths who unwisely and naively "go native". Fears of "glamorization" should not prevent strong action being taken to discourage negative behavior. In fact that is one of the problems of American culture today- a cowardice that too often wants the easy way out, fears being accused of being "judgemental," and fails to stand up and speak up, unfashionable as it may be.

I can't speak for "the culture," because I see trashy parents raising trashy kids, and diligent caring parents raising good kids, and I don't think it's fair to reduce them to a common denominator. What I was talking about was blaming, say, musicians, television or members of the media for the sexual conduct of their consumers, who go there voluntarily, just as people fatten themselves at McDonald's voluntarily.

As for homosexuality, its proponents and apologists conveniently duck the clear word and moral principle of the scriptures to justify themselves. The comment about Leviticus and shellfish by Triticale, is typical evasion. The Mosaic laws primarily have a moral bearing, although there is a practical public health aspect as well. The prohibition against shellfish, as against other things, illustrates the moral principle of confining things to their proper sphere- the principle of separation. The same moral principle applies in a deeper way to homosexuality. Marriage for example, is to be confined to man and woman, for that is its proper sphere. There is no "free for all" approved between those of the same sex or between adults and children, craved as these may be by certain people.

Moral principles found in religious texts -- whether of a dietary or sexual nature -- are not the business of government to enforce. It does not require religious scripture, however, to determine that children are not adults. They are not legally capable of consent, and thus cannot enter into contracts nor consent to sexual relations. While their parents have a primary duty to protect them, they also require legal protection that adults (who are legally capable protecting themselves) do not. It is no more logical to equate sex between two adults with sex between adult and a child than it is to compare a contract signed by an adult to a "contract" signed by a child. (Or for that matter, to equate consensual sex with rape.)

The ban on shellfish, as with pork and other foods once deemed unclean was lifted by Christianity (see Acts 10 and 11). Food as such, provided by God was no longer to be despised. However the MORAL PRINCIPLE of separation- the clean from the unclean still remains, convenient as it is to forget it. And in the case of homosexuality, that ban was never lifted by Christianity. In fact homosexuality is again condemned in the New Testament. That condemnation was never lifted. See the verses below showing how again it is condemned. No matter what dodge or "spin" homosexuals or their apologists try, they cannot get around this.
Both as a specific prohibition, or a moral principle, homosexual behavior is condemned as unclean and inappropriate in both the Old and New Testaments. Naturally this is not the message many want to hear, but it is the correct one in the Judeo-Christian tradition, unpalatable as this may be to those bent on what that tradition calls "strange flesh".

Applicable NT verses- too often conveniently forgotten:

see Romans 1: 26: "..gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature; and in like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their lust towards one another; males with males working shame, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was fit.."

or see

1 Timothy 10: "to the impious and sinful, to the unholy and profane, to smiters of fathers and smiters of mothers; to murderers.. sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers; and if any other thing is opposed to sound teaching,"

As the same NT says: "By their fruits, ye shall know them."

The Council of Jerusalem formally released Christians from being bound by the strictures of the Mosaic Law. However, in a compromise, four specific things were prohibited as off limits to Christians:

pollution of idols

eating or drinking of blood

eating of strangled things

fornication.

Bear in mind that this wasn't Jesus speaking, but an early conference of Christian leaders. I don't know how many Christian leaders consider themselves bound by the Council of Jerusalem, but the selective citation of Leviticus -- and the bizarre idea of establishing a "Christian Mosaic State" -- makes me wonder. Assuming Christians are not to fornicate, why does the homosexual variety receive such disproportionate attention?

While the commenter seems to have quoted correctly from words attributed to Paul, whether Paul wanted his opinions translated into laws promulgated by governments is far from clear. Indeed, whether Christians are bound by Paul's thoughts is far from clear, as Paul was only a man, and not even an actual disciple. (Accepting the claim that he met Jesus requires an act of Paulinist faith.)

I have no problem with moral rules, dietary rules, or dress codes, and if I had kids I wouldn't want them carrying on like gangsta rappers either.* My complaint is when the state treats people like children, that's what they'll get. That's the major difference between our free society and those in which the state claims to rule in the name of God. When the mullahs are away, the (adult) children will play. (And the flout the government dress code.)

People who are in need of a moral shepherd with ultimate authority over their lives have every right to seek out, find, and follow one. What violates my sense of freedom is when they decide I must follow theirs.

* Quite parenthetically, things like strict dress codes tend to preempt a child's degeneracy into gangsta rap chic, because (as I've argued before) they provide a "buffer." A child whose idea of rebellion involves not straightening his necktie and neglecting to shine his shoes is a long way from gold medallions and wearing underwear outside his pants.

But if I might think a dress code for kids is a good idea, others might disagree. I have no right to tell other people what to do with their kids, much less tell adults what to wear.

MORE: I almost forgot the the comment's conclusion (or final sentence):

As the same NT says: "By their fruits, ye shall know them."

I agree. This was taken yesterday in New Jersey in the spirit of the season:

(But what do I know about the fruits of others?)

posted by Eric on 10.30.05 at 08:06 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2966

Comments

What a beautiful picture!-Thank you!

As to why homosexuality gets more "attention" than the "other forms" of fornication: "Proponents" of homosexuality are seeking to "normalize" it -thereby removing all moral barriers and changing the very foundation of human civilization. There is (and always has been) plenty of promiscuity and adultery in the world, but it's pretty obvious that adultery often carries the penalty of divorce, (or worse) and that promiscuity has always carried the penalties of disease (now possibly deadly) and unwanted pregnancies. No one but hedonists are championing "the other fornications" to become mainstream, and the "old rules" obviously support the formation and support of family and society.

It may or may not be true that "the other fornications" are not getting as much attention and resistance, but those battles are old, ongoing and are on many fronts. Every family which censors what its children see or hear in the media (and even in school) fights that battle continuously. Children are sexualized at such a young age in this nation, and I , for one, find that to be very sad. In this day and age, short of living a hermit family's life, it is a situation almost impossible to avoid.

American Mother · October 30, 2005 07:12 PM

I think that it receives so much attention because homosexual activists are pressuring many Christian denominations to condone their behavior. For example, tomorrow, a United Methodist court will rule on such a case.

The focus of the prophets often varied based on the sinful activities of the day, and that has not changed. It would be rather irrational for James Dobson or any other Christian media hog/"leader" to rant on and on about idolatry because it is not a problem in America today. It was however, back then, hence the extensive prophetical focus on the subject.

While the commenter seems to have quoted correctly from words attributed to Paul, whether Paul wanted his opinions translated into laws promulgated by governments is far from clear.

Well put! It's worth noting that Jesus never advocated the use of government force to implement righteousness. Unfortunately, there are some uncomfortably statist Scriptures as well. I'm still wrestling with them.

Indeed, whether Christians are bound by Paul's thoughts is far from clear, as Paul was only a man, and not even an actual disciple.

He was only a man, but he spoke with as much spiritual authority as any other Apostle who wrote in the NT.

John · October 30, 2005 10:03 PM

Extremely interesting once again. This Enrique Cordova is an interesting adversary. He has style, though I must disagree with him on homosexuality. Here, he and I have an irreconcilable theological difference: homosexuality as sin vs. homosexuality* (and heterosexuality) as holy.

*both gynosexual women and androsexual men.

I agree with you on the children. It's up to parents to raise their children, not government. Children need discipline. Suits and ties -- excellent. As to (c)rap "music", I would certainly never tolerate it in my home. I would expose any children I had (had I any children) to good music, the kind I grew up with and love: Beethoven, Handel, Mussorgsky, the Carmina Burana....

Instead of TV, I would give them good books. Children don't need "role models", they need heroes: Osiris, Isis, Horus, Thoth, Marduk, Ishtar, Gilgamesh, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Mordecai, Esther, Daniel, Jesus Christ, Prometheus, Theseus, Odysseus, Thor, Tyr, Odin, Freya, Charles Martel, Jeanne d'Arc, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Howard Roark, John Galt, Francisco D'Anconia....

I would give them the same sex education I had. As I said in another thread, I'm glad I never heard of sex for a long time. As sex is the deepest expression of the self, you first need time and space within which to build a self. Then, I gradually began to piece it all together, reading books and experiencing "erotic reality" on my own.

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · October 31, 2005 12:24 AM

Happy Halloween!

Every Negro parent (and every non-Negro parent, too) should read his children this paragraph:

"Those who blame Capitalism for exploiting people would do well to examine history beyond the distorted public-education history books which ignore the legislated exploitation which Capitalism is blamed for, just as the same history books ignore the outstanding achievements of American Negroes such as Jan Matzelliger who invented the shoe-stitching machine, Garrett Morgan who invented the traffic light, the insulated suit, and the gas mask, Elijah McCoy who invented the automatic machine lubricator, Norbert Rillieux who invented the vacuum pan for the sugar industry, and Benjamin Bannaker who was an outstanding black American astronomer, mathematician, and surveyor who also wrote the first almanac -- to mention only a few."
-The Angry American (National Freedom Education Center, 1972)

Ever heard of these outstanding American Negroes? Me neither, until I read that Conservative book back in 1972. Have you seen any schools named after them? Why is it that we always hear about the Jesse Jacksons and their ilk, but we never hear about the Negroes who actually did something great? Do I smell racism? Communism vs. the Negro? I, too, am an Angry American!

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · October 31, 2005 12:28 PM

American Mother says '"Proponents" of homosexuality are seeking to "normalize" it -thereby removing all moral barriers and changing the very foundation of human civilization.' *All* moral barriers? The very foundation of human civilization? Nay, dear mother, although one can find extremists in gay proponents as one can everywhere else, I see most of the voices who speak for gay equality/recognition as people who seek to be treated as fellow equals with the discrimination against them removed. They aren't seeking to legalize murder, theft, or even condoning promiscuity, pedophilia, et cetera; they aren't trying to take away the sacrament of matrimony, although some wish to share in that blessing. I sympathise with trying to raise children in our age of oversexed advertising and amoral media. But to make broad attacks on those who are not your enemies is a more sure way to destroy the foundations of civilization. Straight and gay alike must defend the Classical Values of truth, kindness, and respect. I pray your children will grow up to hold those values close and live them in their daily lives; that is the glue that holds a civilized society together.

Stewart · October 31, 2005 01:02 PM

Stewart, I should have written "all sexual moral barriers" . I do not, however, think for a minute that being kind and respectful to everyone means that everything that everyone does is ok. If distinctly non-procreative sex is encouraged, why not bestiality and pedophelia? Where does one draw the line? Who gets to draw the line?

Am I interested in your sex life?-no-it really is not my business...but Society has a huge interest in the purposes and results of sex (know any Shakers?) Frankly, I can think of few advantages ; but much death,pain and destruction of lives and families; which have resulted from the "sexual revolution". It is hard to believe that tossing out one of the biggest taboos would be beneficial to society as a whole.

As a "Breeder" (just try to tell me that was a loving pet name for straights), I have often found my interest in providing a safe and non-sexualized world for our society's children to be counter to a great many of the visible and vocal GBLT community.

American Mother · October 31, 2005 05:11 PM

I disagree with that. The purpose of sex is higher than procreation. The Divinely ordained purpose of the sexual embrace is to unite one's own body and soul with the body and soul of the highest type of human being one can find, the embodiment of one's deepest values, thus bringing one closer to the Divine. This can be either a man or a woman, the manliest man, the woman most like unto one's image of the Most High Goddess.

It is for this reason that sex with children or animals is wrong, as is promiscuity and adultery.

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · October 31, 2005 08:15 PM

To put it simply, why do we have the parts that we do? Is the creation of life out of that union not the true purpose? Man and woman do need to bind to each other for at least the length of their progeny's childhood, and sex is part of that bond (which is one of the reasons promiscuity is so bad-it creates false and temporary bonds with no foundations.) Although there are those who seek to make it otherwise, male and female are still needed. A woman's entire life-cycle centers upon her fertility...to ignore that is to attempt to create an entirely different narrative of the human species.

American Mother · October 31, 2005 09:58 PM

I must stand by my holy dogma, as you must stand by yours.

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · October 31, 2005 11:51 PM

Steven answered well for me. The procreation arguement to me seems to lead to a Monty Python-esque "every sperm is sacred" conclusion. But I don't throw out that term to offend you, A.M.; I have used it of myself in conversation, tho' at our age my wife and I are unlikely to have progeny. The Gift of sexual union is a high and holy thing IMO, and we can agree that immoral acts have bad consequences for self and society. To compare loving actions of adults intent on fulfilling each other to abuses such as you mention is like the difference between withdrawing from one's bank acount and robbing the bank; two very different things that only have physical similarities in common. As Heinlein wrote somewhere, "Ultimate evil consists of treating a person as a thing."

Stewart · November 1, 2005 01:14 AM

Well ,the problem is that everyone does not agree. This is another case where compromise is almost impossible, because the differences are so great.

When it comes to legal rights, mechanisms which are not already in place to allow consenting adults to enter in legal contracts with each other should be installed. Whether it is a same-sex couple, a co-habitating hetero couple or someone's two old aunts, as adults they should be able to allocate property and medical power of attorney (and so forth) as they see fit without running a gauntlet. If it is true that it is a burden to piece together such contracts, I recall reading of some sort of "package" of laws doing that available somewhere in the world-maybe a Scandinavian country? This would not be a "civil union" or marriage, for it would rightly be available to any couple (or even group, yes?) as private contracts recognised by the government.

Marriage is not just about laws and property rights, but behavior. Marriage as granted by government is an action of social engineering, encouraging behaviors which benefit civilization and encourage order. What we each do "in our bedrooms, in our homes " is private and deserves protection. When it affects someone else (even children or an unwilling other within the walls of the home) or spills out onto the street, the government rightly has an interest, since it represents all of the other individuals as well.
The rights and forms within marriage have differed greatly throughout time and place, but to change the definition so fundamentally that it loses all meaning serves only the interests of a very few to the detriment of all.

American Mother · November 1, 2005 12:32 PM