|
November 26, 2003
Interesting definitions....
"When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humptius DumptiusA number of religious bloggers are upset about a post by Dean Esmay explaining why he renounced Christianity. As one of the few people I know who claims to be both a Pagan and a Christian, I think it is only fair that I pose a question: Is God a book? If so, which book? Who wrote these books? It is one thing to believe in God, but it strikes me as the height of arrogance to demand adherence to words written by men claiming to be speaking for God (or acting as scriveners for God). It is in my opinion a cruel game to assert that God is a book, and if (for the sake of argument) it turns out that "God" happens to favor a particular book, that would make God even crueler than the men who wrote it. God, being spiritual and infinite, must be felt. Not all men are able to feel God. (And feelings are not readily provable.) Books consist of words written by men, and must submit to (and be judged by) the rules of logic. To assert that words of men are the words of God is to assert something without logical foundation. How many men might say they believe these words come from God is logically irrelevant. A related issue is who decides what the words mean. What, for example, is a conservative? According to Jonah Goldberg, "conservative" and "gay" are mutually exclusive: [Jonathan Rauch is] brilliant and well-respected, and he has some very conservative views. But he is also gay.No but about it! (via InstaPundit.) Interesting. I guess considering the source (the Corner being the last word on conservatism and sexual matters) it is now official. Political preference shall henceforth be determined by sexual preference! The left has been saying that for years, and now the right has finally agreed. Does this mean the word "homocon" has been officially abolished? Are homocons oxymoronic? Many liberals would agree with Mr. Goldberg that they are. Maybe the homocons were all molested by liberal fathers! Clayton Cramer has cited a mess of a person, Michael Jackson, for the fascinating proposition that homosexuality arises from childhood sexual abuse. Without getting into the post hoc ergo propter hoc issues, how about childhood abuse and heterosexuality? Bisexuality? Whose judgments are these? Whose words? I don't like the word "bisexual" any more than I like the words "heterosexual" or "homosexual", but because of the tyranny of sexual identity politics I have to deal with words laid down by others. What makes it even tougher is when people allege words come from God. There is no real way to rebut such an assertion, because logic is not involved. If I say that an assertion -- that God said something (backed only by the words of men) -- is simply an unsupported assertion, that will not persuade people who want to believe that God said it. Nothing will persuade such people. And, like ideologues, the more they "know," the more hopeless any arguments become. I have noticed an across-the-board pattern involving the tyranny of superior "knowledge." Whether liberal, conservative, atheist, fundamentalist, Communist, Arabist -- when people commit themselves himself to a particular ideology, the true believers often so immerse themselves in a study of it that they become steeped in the material. They believe that the more they "know," the more "right" they are -- and the more "wrong" their opponents. An extreme example would be a Muslim who has memorized the entire Koran verbatim. Such a person is very likely to believe that his "superior knowledge" -- or "scholarship" (or whatever you want to call it), not only makes him right, but gives him a sort of duty to argue at length (and often in circles) with all who don't see it his way. "I know more about the Koran than you do; therefore I am right and you are wrong!" The logical error, of course, is that superior knowledge of that which is incorrect or illogical does not render it correct or logical. I have all thirteen volumes of the Works of Stalin, which I consider a marvelous sleeping aid. Even if I commited them to memory, and I wrote a long Ph.D. thesis, no amount of scholarship could possibly make Stalin's thoughts correct. I say this because I get in long arguments with a friend working toward his Masters in International Relations. An accomplished Arabist scholar, he knows much more than I do, and can site every detail of every single Mideast war, treaty, battle, skirmish, election -- ad nauseam. He thinks this makes him right, and anyone who doesn't know the details "wrong." You don't know what you're talking about and I do!Years ago, an ophthalmologist in China was greeted by an angry mob who stormed into her clinic, and demanded to see her hands. Lo and behold, not a callus was found on them. "You don't know wheat from rice!" they shrieked. And off to the fields it was for that poor ophthalmologist. She learned about Maoism while she harvested rice on her hands and knees. The mob knew more than she did, after all. This is from a Fox News story: ....[O]ne of the judges is a lesbian. She voted against gay marriage, saying the court didn't have the right to make such a law.According to my research (and simple logic), the "lesbian" reference can only mean Justice Martha Sosman (assumed to be a yes vote), who filed a dissenting opinion in which she concluded: As a matter of social history, today's opinion may represent a great turning point that many will hail as a tremendous step toward a more just society. As a matter of constitutional jurisprudence, however, the case stands as an aberration. To reach the result it does, the court has tortured the rational basis test beyond recognition. I fully appreciate the strength of the temptation to find this particular law unconstitutional--there is much to be said for the argument that excluding gay and lesbian couples from the benefits of civil marriage is cruelly unfair and hopelessly outdated; the inability to marry has a profound impact on the personal lives of committed gay and lesbian couples (and their children) to whom we are personally close (our friends, neighbors, family members, classmates, and co-workers); and our resolution of this issue takes place under the intense glare of national and international publicity. Speaking metaphorically, these factors have combined to turn the case before us into a "perfect storm" of a constitutional question. In my view, however, such factors make it all the more imperative that we adhere precisely and scrupulously to the established guideposts of our constitutional jurisprudence, a jurisprudence that makes the rational basis test an extremely deferential one that focuses on the rationality, not the persuasiveness, of the potential justifications for the classifications in the legislative scheme. I trust that, once this particular "storm" clears, we will return to the rational basis test as it has always been understood and applied. Applying that deferential test in the manner it is customarily applied, the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from the institution of civil marriage passes constitutional muster. I respectfully dissent.Here's Justice Sosman's judicial profile. I am sure she will face kneejerk condemnation by gay and lesbian activists for this and I wish more people thought for themselves. It does not matter whether I agree with Justice Sosman, so I won't cheapen my praise of her courage by getting into that. Anyway, it's the business of Massacusetts, and I don't live there. But I guess the result is of more interest than the legal reasoning -- or the meaning of the "rational basis test." When I took Con Law it seemed they spent a lot of time on that and left me more confused than ever about its definition. Maybe that's why they call it "Con Law." In order to understand it, you have to be a Con Law scholar -- or a homocon. (All of which are oxymoronic.) UPDATE (7-19-04): A reader emails that the quote from O'Reilly above is commentary and should not be called a "story." Fair enough, I guess (but the URL uses the word "story.") Either way, O'Reilly made the remark, and it speaks for itself. posted by Eric on 11.26.03 at 10:36 AM
Comments
If God was a book, this is what She would look like: Steven Malcolm Anderson · November 26, 2003 10:42 PM Sorry folks, but I cannot claim to know what God "wrote" or "said." Ever heard him? How do you know you've read him? There's too much stuff floating around which is attributed to God, and I just have this sneaking suspicion that it was written by men. Eric · November 26, 2003 11:37 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Thanks for the link.
God, being spiritual and infinite, however, cannot be "felt", and the only way we can come to know God is through his revelation to us. God is a far greater being than we can ever comprehend, and the only knowledge and understanding of him we can have is attained through revelation -- through creation, and through what he said and wrote.