Apply Liberally

I'm a liberal.

I know this because a helpful internets typology quiz has come my way and told me so. That label may need a good deal of conditioning, but, as far as I'm okay with labels, I am okay with being called a liberal.

Jerks, and by that I mean hyper-nationalist jingos (I guess I am pretty okay with labels) have been generally successful at making it a term of opprobrium, or if not scorn, at best it is a way for them to say, "La la la- I can't hear you." It's an odd thing to defend America from liberals or accuse liberals of being America-Haters when in actuality the term is at the heart of the American ideal (if there is one). For good or bad, liberalism is Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, The Bill of Rights et al. It's also Voltaire, Rabelais, and other priests in the cult of the individual for which America, or at least Americana, is its Zion. If there is an ism that undergirds American constitutional democracy it is liberalism.

Strangely, this is the weight of the label I would be most uncomfortable bearing. All of that Do What Thou Will faith in the individual and reason should seem unsavory, if not impossible, to anyone that has spent more than a day with a human being. I embrace being a liberal, but not to the degree that I think the individual alone is anything that is worth pretending exists.

That might not matter though. That's not the kind of liberal that people mean when they accuse someone or something of being liberal. I think they mean something like, "For some reason I disagree with you, but I don't want to figure out why that might be so I'll just say, 'You're a liberal.'" And really, that's just a genteel form of "gay"-

"You believe in not-for-profit healthcare? That's so gay."

Nonetheless, I embrace the label, as far as it is embraceable. And it doesn't stop with politics; I embrace it as a description of my spiritual outlook.

When I was applying to graduate schools I received a lot of helpful advice about what schools I should attend- or at least which I should fear. By helpful advice, I mean furrowed brows and whispers that seminaries are really cemeteries (get it?) and that secular schools are designed to destroy my faith. If I wanted to have anything worth believing at the end of the day, I'd better choose a conservative school.

I discovered I could know which schools were conservative if they held scripture in high regard. And because liberal schools might sneakily pretend they value the Bible, I had to be careful. There is a test to see how highly a school, or even a congregation, regards scripture. Only truly conservative schools hold scripture in such high regard, that, when it comes to women in positions of church leadership, they know to ignore the whole of the Bible and focus instead on two verses from two books of the New Testament.

I can't swing that way. I'm a liberal so I chose a liberal school. But I like to pretend it's more than a matter of how I swing. It seems that God's work in history is incredibly subversive. A lot of scripture seems to be almost insurrection. Israel seems to be constantly struggling against God (go figure), and God seems to be constantly over-turning their institutions of rule and dominance. That seems a strange position.

If there is a thing we call god, it seems like it should be something central and dominant. If we knew what this god wanted, followed its rules, and demonstrated intense loyalty, almost by necessity, we should be in positions of favor and control. We'd get to be this god's attorneys general, representatives to the UN, and presidents of the World Bank. Our houses would be big and our churches would be mega. I mean if a god is worth being called god, it seems the least it could do is set up some sort of universal order of tit for tat or provide the clear bureaucratic means for expanding our territory and living a life driven by purpose.

It seems instead that the God described in the Bible is a God of the fringe that stands apart from these institutions of power and undermines them. Even if they are set up for him or his people, this God doesn't seem to particularly care for them and these institutions of power don't seem to particularly care for him.

God seems to have a sort of oppositional relation to the way things are, even the way things are in the Bible. It kind of makes sense that his body, as it is present in the world would also have this oppositional relation to the conventional powers of the world. It would be fringe rather than central, subversive rather than dominant. It would challenge the assumptions and conventions of whatever historic conditions it is found. Of course by this I mean it would not bathe, have dreadlocks, and play hacky sack all day. Or something like that. I think in order to buck convention I will leave it at that.

Like I said, as far as labels go, I could be called worse things than liberal.

All You Need to Do Is Follow The Worms

You may or may not know that yet another pro-family anti-gay politician has recently dropped the other shoe, or he at least tapped the shoe of an undercover cop in the restroom stall next to him. Gay or not, that seems like bad bathroom manners.

Anyway the Idaho Values Alliance (a state affiliate of the American Family Association) has said it must regretfully ask for Larry Craig's resignation- only because the testimony of two witnesses- Craig's guilty plea and the arresting officer's reports- is enough to suggest his guilt- or rather- "the essential truth of what happened." So he's out, or he should be as far as they are concerned. Not only that, they have called for the purge of all homosexuals from the party- not just their group mind you, the whole Republican Party. Ignoring for a moment that if they do that, they really should follow up and boot a whole host of other types- divorcees and women with short hair to name two- isn't this a bit like the very thing we say can never happen here?

"Wouldn't you like to see America returned to her rightful place- wouldn't you like to see Our Way rule again? All we need to do is get rid of those people."

Isn't this akin to the Talibanesque, Brownshirty way of doing things that we're supposed to be so eager to blow up in the rest of the world?

Of course they're not lining anyone up against the wall or marching them into re-education camps. I don't know if they would want to, or if they could be perfectly happy just to have no gay people in their party. Isn't it, nonetheless, a troubling sentiment for a democracy?

Besides, how can you tell if someone's gay? I mean other than the strident public declarations against homosexuality, endorsing strict "traditional" gender roles, supporting the Defense of Marriage Amendment, and wearing cowboy hats, how can you tell?

Celebration [of a Type] of Discipline

There may be some "yikes" in the following-

You've been warned.

One of the Bible (read Dispensationalist Theology) teachers at the small Christian high school I used to work at thought it was necessary to tell his students that sexual intercourse not of the so-called missionary variety was wrong. I don't know how this fit into the general curriculum of coloring books and fill in the blank Bible verse memorization sheets, but somehow it was important to communicate this to the children.

And so it was. And since I taught Health there, many students asked me if this was true. And while perhaps some unpleasant, oily, and sticky part of me envied the certainty with which others made pronouncements on matters like what type of sex offended Jesus and whether clones could have souls, I could only say it depends, and ask them why they thought he would say that, how he might justify it scripturally, what it might mean to know God in our sexuality, but, in all, if they wanted to be such and such, they weren't ready for sex. Maybe that helped some.

It's a part of discipline- it's a part of becoming the people we are becoming to be told this is something we do or don't do, this is how we think about this. If we cross that line we are something different, but sometimes it's a weird thing saying where those lines or what the things we don't delineate are.

The chase-

Now any transition that I offer here as an explanation of how I came across the weirdness that follows will sound like a stilted over the top, there's-nothing-to-see-here account of how I came across the weirdness.
So what were you doing that you 'found' that site?- Defense
Though I ultimately have to be comfortable in my skin- I feel the need to justify my existence to others. I could just say I found it at Broadsheet, the feminist blog I often read, and leave it at that, but then I miss the opportunity to obtusely insert how I, the individual, relates and exists in account to some or another community.

That was too confusing for what it might have accomplished. Anyway- this exists. This being a site explaining how one might be a part of a Biblical marriage- a Biblical marriage being one that is marked by a husband that beats his wife. The site goes to some lengths to clarify that such beatings are consensual- a Biblical wife submits to her husband's authority, a husband is answerable to God for how he treats his wife and so everyone is happy- but without a doubt, to them, it is a husband's right and responsibility to beat his wife- or discipline her, as they say- for her benefit. It is a matter of obedience and desire to correspond to the way God wants things.

There are two blogs on the site allegedly written by women who participate in this type of marriage. One is written from the perspective of someone who seems to consent to the idea of being "spanked" by her husband. She says that she needs to overcome her pride and be corrected for secret errors of judgment and missteps, so she regularly asks her husband to spank her. The other is written from the perspective of a woman who never knows when she will be "corrected." She lives in terror of the moments when her husband discovers some mistake she didn't know she made and decides it is necessary to beat her. Both defend their choices as Biblical, right, volitional, and superior. One seems playful and, though not everyone's cup of tea, part of the couple's romantic life. There seems to be a situation wherein consent can be given. The woman is on a footing to give or rescind consent and therefore appears to have some degree of control over the situation. Though perhaps dangerous, there is an element of performance to it; husband and wife are playing roles that they have negotiated and understand as their relationship progresses. The other is written from the perspective of someone who lives in terror and could not possibly consent to the situation in which she finds herself. She writes in the classic idiom of one who thinks she needs and deserves to be mistreated. They are the difference between a boxing match and a street fight.

On their blogs, they make reference to but delete comments that are critical of their lives and choices, to which they offer some form or another of "you just don't understand." They are right, I don't understand, and it makes no difference if I or a million other people stand and shriek in our most nasally Dobsonian voice, fingers wagging, "Wrong!"

Set aside questions of what conditions are necessary to give consent and whether you think this is right, as a grammatical matter, when someone says what they do is God-ordained, that's all there is. There is no reason beyond that.

But to that issue of consent. It seems that when one gives consent they are giving permission, so they have to be in a position to also not give permission. No? Maybe in some instances of this practice, someone wants to be beat and someone wants to be beating, this arrangement provides a nice forum for those actions. They dress it up in their religious talk and with a wink and a nudge they play their game. If it gets to be too much, consent is taken away and it ends. If that escape is not possible, then there is originally no consent. Everything is nice and friendly, even if not exactly friendly.

In this case, it doesn't seem that this group is all that concerned with consent other than their mention of it as a perhaps legal requirement. In the ontological (sorry) justification of their ways- the consent of the wife is as important as my bike's consent to being ridden; it doesn't matter because that's just what they're for. It would be as silly to ask my bike if it wants to be ridden as it would to ask a wife if she wanted to be beat for one of her stupid mistakes.

But what if it's not possible to give consent to certain things? What if by saying I consent to be eaten by a bear perhaps suggests I am not fit to give consent? What if this is something like that? What if by saying I want to be eaten I am saying I lack the capacity for deciding whether I should be eaten because anybody who could properly think it through would not want to be eaten? Of course it's possible that play is a different situation and what consenting adults decide to do is done in a spirit of play. So if they're faking it- then it's great, or, if not great, at least tolerable.

But then if it's tolerable, don't I have to say, "It's okay that they do that- even if it offends my vanilla sensibilities?" It's not for me, but I guess it is for them. But think of the children- doesn't it seem like this is the kind of thing we desperately want to say is a no-no? It's the kind of thing we want to tell kids they shouldn't do when they ask if this thing or another is right or wrong.

I say it's wrong, but I would bet that matters very little to the Christian Domestic Discipline crowd. I would bet it matters as much as any of us saying some or other practice of a 12th century Mayan is wrong. We're not a part of the same world. There is no reference for relation between me and the Mayan, so it really doesn't matter. Though the Christian Discipliner and I might have more in common, as I described what they were doing as wrong and laid it all out for them, they might only hear clicks and clacks in my moral assessment. In fact, they seem to make it clear that that is all they hear from their critics. If we want to describe what they are doing, or more specifically, make some moral claim about what they do, we should be clear that such a claim is about who we are and what we do. Maybe though, as we're clearer and clearer about who we are- we might provide a point of contrast through which some sense of difference may enter. It's only in this sense of difference where any moral dissonance can occur (did I really say only?). We only have moral dilemmas in those areas where we have actual choice.

Even after all this talk- whether I should beat my wife is not a moral dilemma for me- beating my wife is not a real possibility, it's not a choice for me (although- if she keeps leaving her shoes where I can trip all over them...). I think I'm part of a group that says we don't do that. More broadly, there are things we are and do because of what we understand God to be for us. As we're clearer and more direct about who we are, what we do and why- we are possibly that context for contrast. Maybe that has something to do with being the Body of Christ. There are things we (some very fluid, but identifiable group of we) say are wrong and it makes sense to us. It just doesn't makes sense to do such and such if we say we are 'x.' There also seem to be those things we don't quite agree on- even as we are still the same group. Though, in this case, for this to work we may have to be much more public about things that we describe as private- namely sex, and saying it's private- or at least our conception of what private is- seems to be part of the problem- the problem that makes us want to create lists of dos and do not dos rather than something that is a part of the life of who we say we are.

That is, even our sex lives need to be public- political even. If we understand ourselves to be a creature of God, then our lives, our sex lives included, need to be subordinated to the needs of our community that worships God rather than my individual needs or desires. For some this might mean only a certain objective set of practices are appropriate in relation to a god that has revealed itself in history to have a unique interest in foreskins and distaste for bodily fluids. For others it might mean that we are part of the ongoing and still unfolding story of people struggling with God that has most clearly been revealed in Jesus.

It seems we should be saying something like this is what we do as a people who are learning how to respond to God. This is where and how we learn to overcome the understanding that we are a people who struggle with God even in light of what we increasingly understand God has done for us, or this "we" we are trying to be is an analogue for the Word in flesh.

Or, what is right or wrong is clearly written in some leather bound catalogue or vellum scroll of dos and do not dos wherein the acceptable and unacceptable actions for all people everywhere and anytime are found.

I don't know, though I do suspect.

It turns out the site no longer allows visitors; it has probably been receiving extra attention lately. You have to somehow prove you belong to their community in order to navigate their site. Since the public at large has been blocked from the site- I tend to think it is real rather than fantasy.

Gonzalez Resigns

Today Dad Gonzalez announced his resignation from our family after decades of service. Dad Gonzalez is a man of deep faith and integrity and we reluctantly accept his resignation.

As Dad, and before that as Husband, he has had an integral role in shaping our thoughts and attitudes on commitment, family, and he has worked tirelessly to demonstrate just how a spouse should be treated. These positions and goals have required a great deal of sacrifice from his family and we thank them for their willingness to serve their country.

Because ceaseless accusations of infidelity and abandonment have made it impossible to fulfill the responsibilities of spouse and father, Dad has decided it is best for this family, that he resign from his position immediately. It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Dad Gonzalez is impeding from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for marital reasons.

After this season of unfair treatment and accusations about his fidelity and commitment, we hope that we can get on with addressing the real needs of this family in whatever capacity he is able.

We wish him luck in his next endeavor.



Isn't it interesting how things like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions act are cited with such gall and brass as unquestionably wonderful things?

... Him and John Wayne

Did we just go through the anniversary of Elvis' birth or was it his death? I know it's very easy to check, especially since I am at a computer as I type, but by asking I get to emphasize the idea that Elvis' life or death is insignificant to me. See how much I don't care? I won't even check for myself. Though I do know it was one or the other. Last week, everywhere I turned, there was some Elvis related tribute or another which makes as much sense to me as honoring Justin Timberlake.

I am not saying that either of them are without talent. Well, Elvis is now, but he wasn't when he was alive. They are both fine at what they do/did. But isn't hailing Elvis as the king of something we call rock and roll a bit silly? If rock and roll is supposed to be some specific type of ethos or spirit of youth, sexuality, aggression, and passion expressed musically wouldn't Howlin' Wolf, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, or, if it has to be a white guy, Jerry Lee Lewis be more of that for the particular era? Elvis was a good looking guy, with a pleasant voice, who could sing and play other people's music; that's cool, but would the people (I'm thinking of you Jim Ladd) who make such a big deal about Elvis make the same big deal about Justin Timberlake? If they do they're lame, and Justin Timberlake happens to be more talented than Elvis was.

To be clear, this isn't about Elvis qua Elvis. It's about celebrating Elvis and what kind of sense that might make. And to be clear, just in case you ever hear me singing "Rock Your Body," I like Justin Timberlake enough to know, as "I Don't Yet Have a Nom du Web" says, he brought sexy back. I mean really- what's not to like about this guy?


Anyway.

If it is possible to think apart from the accepted notion of Elvis as The King of Rock and Roll for just a moment and see him as he actually stands in relation to the music and the history of which he was a part, we might see that he's really just one in a long line of carefully put together pop products- which is fine as far as that goes. But again, think of Justin Timberlake, and try to imagine people thirty years from now selling themselves as Justin tribute artists.

It is as silly as it seems. There's not much that's King worthy or really anything worth the hype.

So I'm suggesting (vaguely) Elvis is a part of something else. You might not want to buy into Chuck D's script whole hog (though THEY did put Elvis on a stamp), but I wonder if celebrating Elvis is like displaying a Confederate flag. I don't mean you have to hate people of color (as they say) to celebrate Elvis (though it probably helps), only that celebrating Elvis is akin to talk about "The Good Ol' Days," or that Elvis could represent an usurpation or expression of dominance. Now don't start crying yet. You might like Elvis or Justin Timberlake and not be any more racist than your average American (still- that's pretty racist). I'm suggesting that celebrating Elvis as many people have been doing or participating in some Elvis culture has a racist purpose. Maybe it's like using the euphemism "discovered" when discussing the beginning of the conquest of the Western Hemisphere. It's a way to remind people they don't have a legitimate claim to HISTORY. Celebrating Elvis is a way to suppress other voices- and do it with a smile.

Remember, he's not that awesome. He's not that Rock 'n Roll. He was a bit of a joke at times. When he died, he was a lot weird. It's not Elvis per se that is celebrated. I think it's a celebration of dominance and appropriation. I'm not saying it's the same thing as burning a cross- perhaps more insidious though because people who embrace the Elvis mythos might not want to confront their own racism- but racist nonetheless. Maybe it's like a This Is Our Country Chevy commercial, or only thinking of white people when you think of America.

But all is not poop and dead babies. It kind of fits the type for racist symbolism doesn't it? I mean, it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny- Elvis held up as the King even though he's kind of clowny, "The Discovery of America" as a term for conquering a place that already had a name and people- many peoples actually, describing "our forefathers" as Pilgrims seeking religious freedom when what they really wanted was to be able to set people who didn't agree with them on fire. That's the good thing about lies, they don't hold up, and that's encouraging- maybe especially these days. Not to say that lies don't have inertia or that people don't cling to lies intently- but they can be held up to the light can't they? That should be worth something, especially to any people who believe in truth.

Wow, That's Funky

Wait a second, I thought Iraq was not like Viet Nam. Why did the president just say it is?

Who is saying if the US withdraws killing will end? Is that a calculated mischaracterization, ignorance, or evidence of an inability to think critically?

It's interesting that he cites the humanitarian crisis post Viet Nam withdrawal- specifically risky immigration. Isn't there already a humanitarian crisis? More than 2,000,000 Iraqis have fled to Syria and Lebanon- those were the ones who could leave.

Oh September 11th, I almost forgot.

Oh nice- if you're at all opposed to anything the government does, you are a pawn of Bin Laden.

Nahzeesim?

"Across the Middle East millions of citizens are tired of war..." But screw 'em.

I don't think I would cite killed and captured "bad guy" numbers when killed (and captured) not bad guy numbers are far greater and readily available.

Come on. Seriously? The only options this president can see are stay the course or surrender?

Oh well- that's it.

I don't think you should worry that MY PRESIDENT believes any of this. It's really just a lot of rhetorical magic. I mean, Nazis, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union positively compared to the various militant groups in Iraq? The sectarian groups in Iraq are comparable to the cohesive guerilla forces in Viet Nam or Cambodia that overthrew US supported governments? Do you really think MY Yale History PRESIDENT could have sat through any of his courses and not accidentally learned that these are inapt comparisons? Why do it? Why play up the fear and simultaneously say we are an unconquerable divine people? Why describe OUR ENEMY in terms of a vast, dark, threatening mass that lurks behind every corner and threatens our existence at nearly every step?

It does get that lizard part of the brain all fired up doesn't it?

Proof That Bats Are Birds

A woman in Australia has been killed by her pet camel after the animal may have tried to have sex with her.

BBC News

Wouldn't you know it? No sooner do I go and write a post like this wherein I question the magical above the world objective description of nature and law status of the Bible, then this happens.

I had believed in the truth of the Bible, but it was only in a way in which I understood the truth of the relation of God to the world in Jesus. That way made me unsuitable to teach private Christian high school Bible (read Dispensationalist Theology) classes. It's a way that made that previous post possible. Clearly that's no good. There is something about a woman and an animal getting it on that violates an objective natural law and deserves death. Even if it was the camel's idea. This is a reminder, it's not just that we find something morally reprehensible; we don't simply say, "We just don't do that," and so punish it. What we see is that what we should find morally reprehensible is a reflection of some cosmic "should." Morality is exactly like gravity. Of course now, the camel needs to be killed. Then, everything will be as it should.

My way of understanding the Bible is true is lame- I'm sorry, my old way of understanding the Bible is true is lame. It's not truth; it's a catalogue of facts.

We should look forward to more of the following:

A teenage couple having sex for the first time were interrupted when candles set fire to the girl's attic bedroom and forced them to flee naked from her parents' house...

Reuters

The Title of This Post is That Upturned Hand With the Thumb Rubbing the Index and Middle Fingers Gesture Indicating Money

I got another visit from a tongue ugly very soon after my first was removed, so I get to have another tongue surgery in September. I scheduled this second surgery back in July, and I am so thankful I don't live in Canada, England, France, or any other industrialized nation with socialized medicine (but I repeat myself).

July to September.

In case you forgot, this is a tongue ugly.


With my private insurance I get to walk right into a hospital, demand any surgery I want without any fear of rationing or waiting. Boy, could you imagine how horrible it would be if our health care were run by some government corporation like the Postal Service? Sure you could get the life-saving or preventative care you needed, but you might have to wait for it. Sheesh, what a nightmare that would be.

MY PRESIDENT wants to save us from this nightmare. He specifically wants to save children from this nightmare. He's fighting to make sure states don't expand the public health care that does exist to cover more and more children. Thank him so much. So so much.

This is a good thing to do. It must be. If MY PRESIDENT- the one who said Jesus was the most influential person in his life- has chosen this issue there must be something holy and right at its core. Or not. It might be something that is completely unrelated to who he is as a follower of Jesus Christ.

Someone who isn't sanctified by the Holy Spirit might not see this. A secular humanist, for example, might think something like public health care is a good and fundamental thing we provide for each other. Perhaps they might see it as something akin to education or police and fire protection. They might say that it should be one of the most basic things a people who call themselves good would do. They might take their cursory knowledge of Jesus and compare it to what they see Christians doing in the world and experience some dissonance. (Publicly provided healthcare for children, you're against that- really?) They might say this is why Christians seem like an often silly, sometimes scary, bunch. Pffttt, God has chosen the foolish things of the world and all that.

What they fail to see is that, as a Christian, I can only be concerned with my holiness. Jesus is for me. He's my personal savior. Maybe somewhere down the line, just as it is in capitalism, when I do what's best for me there's some marginal good done for you, but even that's beyond the scope of my concern. I'm really just interested in getting to heaven. If you'd like to know more about that, we might have something to talk about. In the meantime, get yourself some health insurance.

Maybe MY PRESIDENT sees denying healthcare to an expanding group of children is important to who he is as a disciple of Jesus. Or maybe he's just very mature in his faith and realizes some worldly thing like that has no bearing on his spiritual relationship with Jesus. That's between him and God, and it doesn't really matter in the big picture. The big picture being whether you're going to heaven or hell.

ed.- I figure to be more helpful I could at least put a link to the Children's Health Insurance Program in California. It's called Healthy Families. If'n you have young 'uns you should sign up for it.

Well Maybe Now Someone Else Will Think Twice About Not Killing Someone

On August 30th Kenneth Foster will probably be killed by the State of Texas for the murder of one Michael LaHood Jr. There is a question about his imminent execution because he may still be granted clemency by the Board of Pardons and Parole (yeah right- it's Texas). There is, however, no question that he did not kill anyone. Even the prosecutor acknowledges that LaHood was murdered by Mauriceo Brown- who was executed last year for the crime. What Kenneth Foster did do was not anticipate that Mauriceo might kill someone during a night of robberies. That's the deal in Texas. If you could have known better, you should have known better. You are not guilty of the same crime as a murderer, but deserve the same punishment.

I just thought you might like to know.

Every Time You Eat A Steak, A Hippy's Hacky Sack Falls In The Gutter

Once again we are having our End of The Summer, and this year, Labor Day, Feast. If you can read this, you are invited (after 6PM on September 1st).
There will be revolution in the air and hot dogs on the grill.

Here I am

Our Conversations Are Punctuated

The Qweenbean- Oh tomorrow's church potluck
Skybalon- Not for me-
The Qweenbean- Why?
Skybalon- ...
The Qweenbean- Oh right- you're going to devil church.
Skybalon- That was almost blogworthy.
The Qweenbean- Arrr- What if I had said, "Oh right you're going to devil church. You'd better not come back gay."?
Skybalon- That would've made it.
The Qweenbean- Put it in. I thought it.

We Are Used To It- You Do This Every Year

It doesn't seem to me that being gay disqualifies one from having kids or being married. I know, I know- I really hate civilization and am just trying to destroy its foundations. If I had my way cats and dogs would be living together- it would be anarchy. But now that we've settled that, I return to my point- I don't think being gay is something that disqualifies one from having kids or being married. I write that with the nagging suspicion that I'm talking out my butt. I'm not gay, and I don't have any kids. How could I know whether gay people can raise children? As for being married- I'm not done yet. Maybe I will fail and prove that I did not know what it took to be married. So what do I know?

I guess I can't know- not in the same way I know my dogs like peanut butter. It seems important. It seems like I'm supposed to think that gay people are incapable of those things that make for good families. That seems so strange to me, though, because I know people who are not gay that seem totally unfit to be married and have children yet they are and have each. And inversely, I know people who are gay that seem fit to be married and be parents yet are neither.

But again, I am speaking from ignorance.

I used to think that it was just a whole pile of cynicism and hypocrisy that led so many conservative politicians to condemn homosexuality in general and grandstand on things like gay marriage and adoption. I used to think it was a strange cultural obsession with hyper-masculinity and a twisted Augustinian understanding of our bodies that made some in the church hate gay so much. But it's becoming clearer, that perhaps the most vocal in the arena know of whence they speak.

I mean, I think we should assume that someone's public condemnation of and fixation on correcting certain sexual behaviors is a veiled confession. It's not a confession in the classic sense, but maybe it's the best confession they can manage; we need to meet them half way. This impassioned plea to not let us, as a people, let gay folks have children is a cry from the source that thinks it knows best. What they are perhaps saying is, "We know from experience that gay people should not have children, because we are gay and think we should not have children." But maybe they are confused. Sure, many of them are gay, but being gay is not the source of the trouble.

The most that Bob Allen (R), for example, should say is, "I am not fit to raise children and I make a horrible husband." I think he would be right to say that, but I think his fitness or not to raise children and what makes him a horrible husband is not a result of his finding men sexually attractive as much as it is a result of whatever makes him look for random sex partners in park restrooms (Not every gay person does this, and some non-gay people do- so gay is not the source). Saying he is not fit to raise children because he is gay is too shallow a remark. The opposite of this is true as well; assuming someone is fit to raise children because they are not gay is right out. It certainly should not follow that a whole group of people is fit or unfit for raising children because Bob Allen obliquely confesses that he is not a fit parent or spouse.

But again- I may be talking out my butt on this. Having never raised children, I don't know that being not gay may be the only criterion that matters.

I say that it is a matter of confusion, not a matter of being gay or not gay. Not only is it a confusion of what follows from my being gay or not gay, it is also a confusion of what gay might be.

???

I know we say that being gay is a matter of attraction- whether it be biological or volitional. If one is attracted to people of the same sex we say that person is gay, but why does that make any sense? I'm not saying it can't ultimately mean that (even if that's what we decide gay means, it's not a useful category), but I guess I might suggest that gay means more than that when we use it. It seems we want to say "Everything we want to suggest about someone's sexual and relational behavior" with the word gay, and that's too much.

Part of the problem might be that we, some wes at least, want to attach some sort of moral weight to the label: gay is murder. Isn't that why it's so important for some that to whom you are physically attracted be a matter of choice? Then it is not simply a morally neutral category of human, like left-handed, or green-eyed. (That line only works if you are familiar with the historic connotations of left-handedness and green eyes). If you choose gay- then we can say there is some wrong you choose. It seems pretty clear that some would like it to mean that. Or at the very least, some pray it is an issue of will that can be altered. I don't see how attraction can be that, but then, what I do see wouldn't fill a thimble.

Remember, there are many reasons to discount what I say. I am not gay. I don't have children. I seem to want to destroy civilization. I know I'm supposed to think being gay- or more specifically a man lying with a man as he would a woman- is as horrible as cursing your parents or working on the weekend or as unnatural as a woman with short hair- but I struggle with seeing that as so. But just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean that's not where I should be. Someday, when I am holier, I might think being gay is on par with giving your children to Molech. But I still don't know if I would think that saying one was gay meant all that.

Back to that issue of attraction. I am not gay. What I mean is I am a man not attracted to men. Oh- I can tell when a man is ugly, so that means I can tell when one is attractive. I know what is attractive in a man, I just don't want to have sex with men, but then, I don't want to have sex with women in general either. I guess I could be lying if I said I find women attractive because I don't find all women attractive. I don't just mean I do find dark or red hair particularly appealing, but blonde hair generally does nothing for me. I mean, I don't want to have sex with women in general (now that I type that, I seem pretty gay). In fact their are possibly as many women that I would not want to have sex with as there are men I don't want to have sex with. I can't imagine any man being a catalyst for the range of physical and chemical reactions associated with physical attraction, so one might say to me, "You are straight." - But I can say the same about me and most women: I cannot imagine them being a catalyst for the range of physical and chemical reactions associated with physical attraction, so one might say to me, "Keep your gay to yourself, fag." Whatever, what I think this is related to is the silliness of the label gay. What do we mean when we say one is a person attracted to people with similar genitalia as one's own and why do we want it to mean that if attraction is such a strange and perhaps insignificant thing? Can gay really be invested with all that it seems to carry?

I guess one partial or start to an answer might be that the Bible seems to condemn being gay so that's why some mean what they mean, but it's difficult to get at what exactly the problem is with Bible gay. (At least it's difficult for me- I don't think bats are birds.) It's important to Christians, or it should be, that some seemingly relevant Bible passages suggest doing certain things matters more than thinking or feeling certain things. Though we might ask, if the factors of attraction are beyond us why we would be "given" tendencies that cannot be acted upon. (Oh right, like original sin is in the Bible.) I guess I think that attraction is itself not problematic. I don't see the gouge out your eyes passage as relevant- lust and attraction are not synonymous, but the "gave up to dishonorable passions" might be. Though there, Paul seems to argue from a sort of natural law perspective, and unless we are meant to follow some self-reflecting what-God-says-is-natural-and-what-is-natural-is-what-God-says line or traipse down the rape-is-more-natural-than-masturbation slope, what is natural or what natural is should not be overstated. But then elsewhere, intention matters more than what one does, and sometimes inclinations are the problem.

blink... blink...

Oh right- gay people and kids.

Unless we think gay has to do with more than to whom one is attracted- it hardly seems like the kind of thing that says, "Children!?- Honey, I know you love fairy tails, but you do not belong around children. We need to get one thing straight- you're not, so just get the idea of having children out of your head. Replace them with ABBA lyrics or color swatches and everyone'll be much happier." It seems that what we might collectively imagine gay to be and what makes it unsuitable for family life is not something that has to do with what one finds attractive in other people. Rather it's a caricature that we connect to what we say gay is, or we use gay as some vessel to carry our collective grief and despair over our failed families. The thing is, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, or perhaps your own parents may serve that role better than the gay people you know in real life, if you need that role to be filled, which, when you get down to it, you don't. You can play that role yourself- though it would require you taking on all the crap you want to dump on the gays or Britney Spears.

I think we have the capacity to be more imaginative and thoughtful about this whole gay thing- especially as Christians. But then, just because I can convert my gas truck to electric doesn't mean I will.

I Am Listening
One Hundred Thousand- Hieroglyphics
Across the Universe- The Beatles
Pigs on the Wing- Pink Floyd
Stella By Starlight- Stan Getz
Twist and Crawl- The English Beat
Castaway- Green Day
She Was a Hotel Detective- They Might Be Giants
Thriller- Michael Jackson
Mayonaise- Smashing Pumpkins
Now Mary- The White Stripes
Una Voce Poco- Rossini
Sexy Sadie- The Beatles
High and Dry- Radiohead
Better Git Hit In Yer Soul- Charles Mingus
Is This What They Used To Call Love- The Magnetic Fields
Red Sea- Hans Zimmer
Hurricane- Bob Dylan
Wild Honey- U2
Lovely Day- Pixies
Out of the Window- Violent Femmes
And Your Bird Can Sing- The Beatles
Last Night I Dreamt That Somebody Loved Me- The Smiths
The Big Country- Talking Heads
Happy Jack- The Who

Well This Calls For More Yellow Ribbon Magnets!

WASHINGTON -- Army soldiers committed suicide last year at the highest rate in 26 years, and more than a quarter did so while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new military report.

AP/LA Times

What? That? It's Just For Research

Ooohhhhh They disgust me!
They should disgust you too.
Them- those people
Those people that I'm pointing at- look!
Eyrgh- I just hate them.
I mean I hate what they do-
No not me- Don't look at me- look at them.
I can barely talk, I'm choking on my disgust and you're still not looking-
How can they be so shameless?
There- did you see that? See what I mean- ugh it's so horrible
Look- you're missing what they're doing- Stop looking at me! Look at them!
I'm only doing this to get your attention so you'll look at them-
There's no reason to look at me
Why are you looking at me? Stop looking at me-
Them. Look. They're so... comfortable about it.
It's horrible- I don't understand how you can be so calm about this.
What? Oh that- it's nothing
Ummm... maybe it is, but it's not mine. One of them must've put it here.
It fell out of my pocket? That's not possible.
Okay- well I used to have one like that but I haven't had one in a long time.
Oh... yeah... that is my name...
Okay it used to be mine but I don't have one anymore.
Oh right- I mean need one. I don't need one anymore.
I'll take that- I'm just going to go put this somewhere safe... somewhere to remind me I don't need it anymore.

He's A Dear Friend

If the prayer of a righteous person does a lot, what does the prayer of a Karl Rove do? Karl has said he does not have the privilege of being a person of faith, but in his goodbye this morning he said he would be praying for MY PRESIDENT. I wonder if all this time Karl has been asking God for wisdom and strength for MY PRESIDENT and this is what we got. That explains some things.

That Karl Rove, accused of being the political mind behind so much evil poop (and a key bit of evidence against the "But he's a good man" argument), is leaving is odd. This isn't a gang that cuts people loose before it's time. It's also not a gang that hangs you out to dry. What does it mean?

You're Still Here? It's Over- Go Home- Go

WASHINGTON- To see the type of person who still backs him, President Bush need only look in the mirror. The president fits the composite of today's Bush supporter: a conservative, white, Republican man, an evangelical Christian who goes to church regularly.

AP/Washington Post

I don't know if that's who MY PRESIDENT really is. Well first of all, I guess it's hard to say even say what that is? When I think conservative I think more of a librarian than a frat boy. And white? What does that mean? Britney Spears-white? George Allen-white? Bill Gates-white? It's not just about skin color is it?

I'm pretty sure it means the people who still support MY PRESIDENT identify with him; whether it really is him is another matter. It seems like the plain-speaking, church-going, folksy Christian cowboy persona is a convenient construction- convenient because, if John Hughes taught us anything, we know the kids with the fancy cars and clear skin are the villains. He is, after all, a Connecticut born, Ivy League, heir to an American oligarchic dynasty- a John Hughes bad guy if there ever was one. That's not very presidential- well, it's absolutely presidential but we like to pretend it's not.

It might not matter to them, though. If that's who he really is or not, it plays for at least that steadfast 1/4 to 1/3 of Americans who believe in his folksy wholesomeness and a young earth despite evidence to the contrary. They see the simple man who loves his momma (not his mother), says "ain't" (just like every other Andover grad), and prays... Boy does he like to let us know he prays- and feels the prayers of others. Someone could look at him and say, "He's one of us." Which sometimes, in some circles, means, "That's me; I love it 'cos it's me." That's not love, and it's certainly no starting point for community. Rather seems like a bit of idolatry doesn't it? No? How about a horribly malformed body- one composed only of gluteal clefts?

I'm a big fan of the body as metaphor for understanding all kinds of junk. A finger is a finger, for example, only in its connection to and relation with other parts- it's articulation and use is impossible apart from other different elements. That's a helpful way for me to understand us. I'm of the mind that who we are is expressed in what we do (and what we say is in the range of possibilities) in our relative choices. So not only do I play a unique role in a community, I also know who I am through connection and interaction with others. It's limited of course. A finger is a finger and a person is a person. I don't know what all makes a given range of possibilities particular for one person and not another. I don't know everything that makes me me- that makes me say these things are possible for me but these others are not.

I'm sorry- I mean I know that God knit me together in my mother's womb and that I am fearfully and wonderfully made and that's what dictates the range of possibilities. I mean I don't know beyond that.

Anyway, I wonder what he really does see when he looks in the mirror. Is he really the cowboy, or is he someone that feels compelled to play the cowboy? Stories of rebellion against his upbringing and environment abound. Cowboy may be a continuation of that. It may also simply be the role that sells to his base so he has to play it. Whatever the case it's a performance isn't it? Not necessarily fake- but a performance nonetheless. It is the role he has to play: cowboy... or perhaps better: gangsta' cowboy (gangsta' in the way suburban kids listening to 50 Cent are gangsta'). There is a limited range of possibilities for him in that role; we've seen them. Maybe it's still helpful to describe it in Hughesian terms. He didn't like the world as bad grown ups had laid it out for him- especially as their conspicuous absence or misguided attention relinquished any claims they had on who he would be. So he began destroying stuff- starting with the part he thought he was expected to play. And then, in case the mean adults didn't quite understand that he was toppling their built up and imposed expectations, he started destroying the things they valued: a Ferrari, Suburban Chicago Mansions, dad's political campaign, Iraq. And, at first, it seems kinda' cool- like Gary is taking a principled stand, or Ferris is really helping his friend out, but then it dawns on you- they're really just narcissisistic buttholes.

Oh by the way- when I say we play roles or understand ourselves within a given community or culture, I don't mean we need to be 2-dimensional types- though some may choose to be. And still, the act of choosing to play those roles says something about who we are. That it is an acceptable option within a group also says something about that group. I think I mean something like that.

So a small percentage still has faith. I guess those are the kind of people you want on your side. Unless of course, MY PRESIDENT has been trying to turn everyone against him with the whole gangsta' cowboy bit and you- you 28 Percenters- are just making MY PRESDIENT do crazier and crazier things. Which, now that I type that, is probably very appropriate. It's probably, much like the Evangelical support of Israeli militarism and apartheid; it's just another calculated move to lure Jesus back.

I Have a Bag of the Organic Lomas al Rio- If You Have The Means, I Highly Recommend Picking One Up
Steal My Body Home- Beck
My Dad Sucks- The Descendents
Many Rivers to Cross- Jimmy Cliff
PLanet of Sound- Pixies
The Right Profile- The Clash
Hip Hop- Dead Prez
La Cucaracha- MFM
Folsom Prison Blues- Johnny Cash
St. Louis Blues- Louis Prima
Rocker- Miles Davis
Two Reelers- Frank Black
Clint Eastwood- Gorillaz
Boogie Shoes- KC and the Sunshine Band
Crown of Love- The Arcade Fire
Don't Change Your Plans- Ben Folds Five
All My Life- Foo Fighters
Jesus Was Right- Frank Black
Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds- The Beatles
Wave of Mutilation- Pixies
Let's Go Away For A While- The Beach Boys
Reelin' In The Years- Steely Dan

Hey Hippie, We're Totally Spreading the American Style of Government?

Trading individual liberties for a false sense of security. An executive that has given himself the authority of a tyrant. Randomly eavesdropping on the public to protect national security. Attributing domestic problems to some nebulous foreigner.

Oh those silly other people, when will they learn?

You know, white people in America are very concsious of racism... in other countries. At least some recent research suggests that white Americans can be very sympathetic and critical when analyzing racist and oppressive tendencies around the world but cannot apply the same template to America. According to the research they can even critically theorize about abstract and hypothetical situations, but when it comes to looking at domestic conditions it seems "we" largely imagine racism ended when Rosie Parkes became the first black bus driver or something like that. Other countries are backwards, undemocratic, oppressive, and racist. America suffers from too many lazy colored folks (even if those colored folks are, at one time or another in history, white- I'm thinking of those dirty papists that ruined America in previous centuries).

If you're too not white, I mean lazy, to check the link above, it's about Zimbabwe and their great leader's decisions. It's easy for us to see them as horribly backwards and too willing to submit to an over-reaching authority. It's probably because of their tradition of tribalism, a strong chief, or some other inherent, insurmountable condition (they're African). We could never fall victim to that because of our rich Western European- specifically English- heritage that deeply values freedom and distrusts consolidated power. Well you could never fall for that. I come from a Spanish and Latin American background- neither of which values the great Western tradition of political freedom. Unfair elections, militarism, selling public resources to the highest bidder, religious fanaticism- that's all I bring to the table. I'm sorry- but thank you, WHITE AMERICA (but I repeat myself) for keeping America scandal and oppression free and making it a shining example of freedom- so unlike the rest of the world- especially that horrible Zimbabwe.

Am I right or am I right?

Anyway, that tendency to not see what's going on in our own living rooms might mean something here. They're racist, I'm just honest. They lie and cheat, I'm just doing what I have to protect my interests. Something like that.

You Think You've Got Problems (No Question Mark)

When The Qweenbean and I divorce- Did I say, "when?" I mean if... If The Qweenbean and I ever divorce it will be because she has set two of the car radio buttons to Jesus stations. We don't have "her car" and "my car." We have "the car" and "the truck;" both used for their purpose by whomever has need. We both drive both vehicles pretty equally, so it seems neither of us should dominate the presets. Maybe one Jesus station I could tolerate. But two stations? And Star 98.7? To the exclusion of Indie and KPFK? Unacceptable.

All this is to qualify why I heard anything on the Jesus station- I think I need to assure you that I am still sufficiently jaded and detached... I suppose I could have said I was ironically listening to the Jesus station...

In any case, this morning I heard a spot for some car giveaway contest they have. At one time in churchy history, contests and raffle type events were malus in se- but apparently, just as a clearly evil song by the Cure or U2 can be sanctified and qualify for a Dove award when performed by some Tooth and Nail product (even without changing the lyrics or arrangement ), so can a game of chance be redeemed by its issuance. This radio station is holding a giveaway for givers. You nominate someone you think is worthy- someone who demonstrates what it means to be a giver, and somehow a winner is selected to receive two cars- one to keep and one to give away. I'm not sure if it's by voting or the abject appeal of the nominee, but I was lucky enough to hear one recorded nomination. I forget the name, but boy, was she a Christian hero: she suffered from multiple debilitating conditions that made getting about without a scooter difficult, she was in a great deal of physical pain, and she lost her home so rents a room from a friend. She suffers. That's why she's a giver.

Somebody misunderstands what it means to be a giver. I admit I am not the best Christian, so I may not understand what Christians mean when they say someone is a giver. Or maybe, the radio station plays a recording for every nominee, so this one nominator misunderstands what it means to be a giver. Or maybe the radio station misunderstands what it means to be a giver. I don't know for sure. For some reason, when asked to nominate a giver who deserves a car, so it seems at least two people, the nominator and the one who decided to put it on the air- thought suffering or misery made one a giver therefore a suitable contestant. Dumb. It seems to fit, though, with this greater phenomenon that I have encountered in my dance along the edges of Evangelical culture. Christians love a sad sack.

Many years ago, The Qweenbeen and I knew a girl that was quite a celebrity in our social circles. She had cancer. This opened all kinds of doors for her, she was made the central feature at someone else's wedding (the entire ceremony was oriented about how long and where she could stand), she was a marquee speaker at a Christian camp "decision night" (for those of you that don't know- "decision night" is the moment at the end of a long week of social coercion, little sleep, physical exertion, protein deprivation, and dehydration wherein children are asked if they want to be like the leaders around them and accept Jesus.). She shared how her family rejected her because they didn't want a kid with cancer, how she suffered but God kept her alive well past the point doctors said she should be dead, how she experienced miraculous healing of tumors, and if she could go through so much and believe what was stopping anyone else. I don't remember the details but she said she had some type of cancer that was definitely going to do her in. Soon. All of this suffering brought out so much good in people. People opened their homes, prayed over her, took her to the doctor, defended her against jerks like me who said, "I thought chemo was supposed to make you lose weight." And because of all of this goodness in the face of suffering, wonder of wonder, miracle of miracles God took a tailor by the hand- I mean this little lady is still alive, and last I heard, sharing her cancer experiences with another group.

When I once asked why she wasn't dead yet, after years and years of what was supposed to be a very aggressive terminal cancer, I got the same type of looks I would get when I naively suggested that there seems to be a different order of creation in each of the Genesis accounts (don't worry, it was well before I was really a Christian- now I know how to read), or the same look one might still get today if they prayed for enemies in a way that didn't imply we want it to be easier for THE TROOPS to kill them.

I wish I could say I was prescient or had so much insight into the human psyche that I saw her game- but really, I'm just a jerk. Turns out, she was a faker. A pretty good faker. She was shaving her head, marking up her body for her radiation treatment, injecting herself with saline, walking around with an IV, researching what her symptoms should be, collapsing, getting cold, etc... She seemed to be going through the things someone with cancer would be going through- except, the people that I know who have really had cancer didn't do any of the things at which she became a virtuoso. Now that I mention it, the people I know who really have had cancer, especially the ones who died, were very different from this girl. Different enough to be described as almost exactly opposite. They seemed to lack the desperation and desire for notoriety. Their private suffering, humor, dignity, moments of anger, resignation, and general effort to get on with life were as different from her aggressive pathos as genuine conversation is from movie dialogue. But plenty of people were looking for someone to play a part- someone to say, "I'm an alcoholic, Kyle... an alcoholic."

Sad that life in Christ is ostensibly supposed to be waking life, real life, but we so often choose slumber or to trip through existence playing prescribed roles. Sadder that we so often choose the pathetic roles we do. It seems like we know our hearts of stone need be replaced, but we choose plastic over flesh.

Lame.