Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com
“Positive Polarization” and the purpose of the Gay Marriage Amendment
Josh Marshall has it right today –
“It all reminds me of a line from a famous, or rather infamous, memo Pat Buchanan, then a White House staffer, wrote for Richard Nixon in, I believe, 1972 when their idea of the moment was what they called 'positive polarization'.
At the end of this confidential strategy memo laying out various ideas about how to create social unrest over racial issues and confrontations with the judiciary, Buchanan wrote (and you can find this passage on p. 185 of Jonathan Schell's wonderful Time of Illusion): ‘In conclusion, this is a potential throw of the dice that could bring the media on our heads, and cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half.’
And there you have it. Tear the country apart. And once it's broken, our chunk will be bigger.”
On the subject of homosexuality, I am of the opinion that Christianity, as a whole, is firmly against casual promiscuous sexual relations of any sort and much of the gay community, though much less than ten years ago, still embraces such a lifestyle. But this is a religious assessment, and not a justification of inserting discrimination into the Constitution. Gay marriage or a fully legally equal civil union is clearly protected by any fair reading of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
But what about homosexuality and Christianity, what is the real issue?
On the practice itself Christ says not one word. This is no small thing. If you wish to differentiate yourselves, your religion, and your morality from someone else, you point out everything they are doing “wrong” in our eyes. You nit pick them to death and show all their weaknesses.
Jesus did none of this despite the quite common pagan practice of homosexuality would have been apparent all around him and even among the Jews. Even during the Maccabees, two hundred years before, Hellenization, the coming of Greek culture and sensibilities, was rampant in Judaea and Jerusalem was made a polis. Such a designation required all sorts of Greek institutions – the gymnasia system that encouraged homosexual behavior among men, Jews naming their children Greek names, and the celebration of the male form, are all mentioned in both Maccabees 1 & 2 and the Letter of Aristaeas as functioning aspects of society even in Jerusalem. The Pharisees were against all of this and they won out in the end – but it took centuries of rabbinical exegesis following the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 to achieve that victory, and Hellenistic elements remain.
In addition, there is the much-discussed relationship of Jesus and “the beloved” disciple (most probably John) – no, I am not speculating that this was a homosexual relationship. I am quite convinced that it was not. The interesting aspect here is that the term used, agapao, does denote a very special relationship between two men and this was never downplayed in later translations in the post-Pauline church.
This is important because, the Gospel of John is most likely the last work of the NT. All of Paul’s ranting against homosexuality is decades before the Johannine documents, and also it is always contained somewhat in a laundry list of other ‘sinful’ or unchristian behavior, adultery, fornication, excessive drinking, gambling, and even jewelry are all listed as inappropriate for Christians. Homosexuality is not singled out as the worst or a greater sin.
By AD 100, the probable time of John’s Gospel, Paul is long deceased and Gnosticism is on the rise; Paul is almost without doubt considered the highest Christian doctrinal authority at this time. Yet, John writes of a ‘beloved’ disciple – in fact the only incidents where Jesus is said to ‘love’ someone it is a man. The term is never used with a woman; even Jesus own mother is twice treated with casualness. Indeed, the Jesus-John relationship was personal enough to elicit the open jealousy of the other disciples, noted in the last chapters of John. It was acknowledged by these disciples to be special, personal and most importantly, based on love.
In the early 2nd century, Christianity was a struggling Jewish sect, still largely undistinguished from Judaism, yet long after the NT documents were written. The earliest extant pieces we have of the Gospels are 3rd and 4th century and most examples are much later medieval versions. It would have been easy to alter the texts to expunge unwanted or controversial positions. With regard to the beloved disciple, this was not done.
Those wanting to push the anti-gay Christian agenda often argue that Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality because he felt it to be understood in Judaism and clearly proscribed. Yes, Judaism did have proscriptions against homosexual behavior, but actually specified male-to-male acts. Lesbianism was proscribed but a punishment is not given – most likely because it was not seen as a “waste” of the man’s “seed”. Yet the same proscriptions exist for kosher rules and divorce in the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as methods of prayer, ritual, and sacrifice, and Jesus speaks specifically about all of these.
Moreover, Jesus forcefully and specifically forbids divorce except in the instance of infidelity. Fifty years ago, neither the Anglican nor the Catholic Church would remarry a divorced person – now both do this. The Church evolved, and even against a clear and unequivocal statement of Jesus. How does it now refuse to acknowledge that no justification for gay-hatred exists in the text?
In truth, all proscriptions against homosexuality in the NT are Pauline. Paul was a trained Pharisee, a student of Gamaliel, therefore would have resisted Hellenization strenuously and seen it as a corrupting force. By his own acknowledgement, Paul brought these biases to every argument. In addition, as the documents of the NT were being decided upon in the late 2nd century, these ‘beloved’ passages could have easily been redacted. They could have been glossed, deëmphasized, or marginalized to be brought more in line with Paul. Yet, they remain a glaring challenge to anyone who would use Scripture to justify exclusionary hatred.
Hatred, or mean-spirited prejudice of any fellow man is nearly impossible in correct humanism and certainly should be to any Christian. ‘Love the sinner, hate the sin’ has become a dangerous caveat carte blanc for all sorts of utterly un-Christian behavior by Christians. Hatred is after all, a finished product, a sentence handed down, even at best, hate is a mental conclusion arrived at after thought and deliberation – hate is therefore a moral judgement, and by definition out of our jurisdiction in regards to humankind.
This is the saddest part of the new appeasement of the Bush administration to the Christian Extremists. It appeases the worst version of Christianity. It appeases the most exclusionary, most judgmental aspects of the faith, rewarding bad, unchristian behavior in favor of mean-spirited censure. Perhaps worst of all, it attempts to do this in the founding document of America, a document that holds religious freedom, not enforcement, as its highest ideal.
If Bush should lose this election, it will be very clear why. I have been a Republican and a Christian my whole life. I believe that national security is the #1 most important issue in America – it is, to be blunt, the thing that makes any other issue possible in the first place. I do not buy the loss of jobs argument, I think tax cuts work, and I think abortion is wrong, I still support the Iraq war and feel that those 500 plus brave men and women saved untolled millions from horrible death, and I even agree that activist judges should simply be arrested and dismissed from office. I believe all this and right now, I don’t know if I’m voting for Bush.
I don’t know because this political ploy is so overtly mean-spirited and opportunistic it that my own sense of fairness and decency is far more offended by the attack than whatever defense could be made of it. I can’t believe I am the only one, even the only Christian to feel this way.
It is my view that Karl Rove decided that Bush had been denied his landslide – economy’s rise slowing, Dems making jobs an issue successfully, the public’s growing disenchantment in Iraq. Karl Rove decided he had to now play the division card. He decided Bush’s best chance for reelection was to force a 1% race. KR now thinks the election could be decided by 1% of the vote. And he only had one card to play to get that 1%. It’s a staggering risk – and shows how serious the Bush camp takes reelection as a restoration v/v Clinton 92, and how possible a Bush defeat is now recognized to be in the White House. It also shows the Bush team has few real plans for Iraq, the economy, or any other major issue.
Karl thinks – we divide the country now on gay marriage, and our chunk will be bigger. I am unconvinced. It’s awfully early to be this desperate, unless you truly have no real hope for PR bumps in the future.
Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com
Josh Marshall has it right today –
“It all reminds me of a line from a famous, or rather infamous, memo Pat Buchanan, then a White House staffer, wrote for Richard Nixon in, I believe, 1972 when their idea of the moment was what they called 'positive polarization'.
At the end of this confidential strategy memo laying out various ideas about how to create social unrest over racial issues and confrontations with the judiciary, Buchanan wrote (and you can find this passage on p. 185 of Jonathan Schell's wonderful Time of Illusion): ‘In conclusion, this is a potential throw of the dice that could bring the media on our heads, and cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half.’
And there you have it. Tear the country apart. And once it's broken, our chunk will be bigger.”
On the subject of homosexuality, I am of the opinion that Christianity, as a whole, is firmly against casual promiscuous sexual relations of any sort and much of the gay community, though much less than ten years ago, still embraces such a lifestyle. But this is a religious assessment, and not a justification of inserting discrimination into the Constitution. Gay marriage or a fully legally equal civil union is clearly protected by any fair reading of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
But what about homosexuality and Christianity, what is the real issue?
On the practice itself Christ says not one word. This is no small thing. If you wish to differentiate yourselves, your religion, and your morality from someone else, you point out everything they are doing “wrong” in our eyes. You nit pick them to death and show all their weaknesses.
Jesus did none of this despite the quite common pagan practice of homosexuality would have been apparent all around him and even among the Jews. Even during the Maccabees, two hundred years before, Hellenization, the coming of Greek culture and sensibilities, was rampant in Judaea and Jerusalem was made a polis. Such a designation required all sorts of Greek institutions – the gymnasia system that encouraged homosexual behavior among men, Jews naming their children Greek names, and the celebration of the male form, are all mentioned in both Maccabees 1 & 2 and the Letter of Aristaeas as functioning aspects of society even in Jerusalem. The Pharisees were against all of this and they won out in the end – but it took centuries of rabbinical exegesis following the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 to achieve that victory, and Hellenistic elements remain.
In addition, there is the much-discussed relationship of Jesus and “the beloved” disciple (most probably John) – no, I am not speculating that this was a homosexual relationship. I am quite convinced that it was not. The interesting aspect here is that the term used, agapao, does denote a very special relationship between two men and this was never downplayed in later translations in the post-Pauline church.
This is important because, the Gospel of John is most likely the last work of the NT. All of Paul’s ranting against homosexuality is decades before the Johannine documents, and also it is always contained somewhat in a laundry list of other ‘sinful’ or unchristian behavior, adultery, fornication, excessive drinking, gambling, and even jewelry are all listed as inappropriate for Christians. Homosexuality is not singled out as the worst or a greater sin.
By AD 100, the probable time of John’s Gospel, Paul is long deceased and Gnosticism is on the rise; Paul is almost without doubt considered the highest Christian doctrinal authority at this time. Yet, John writes of a ‘beloved’ disciple – in fact the only incidents where Jesus is said to ‘love’ someone it is a man. The term is never used with a woman; even Jesus own mother is twice treated with casualness. Indeed, the Jesus-John relationship was personal enough to elicit the open jealousy of the other disciples, noted in the last chapters of John. It was acknowledged by these disciples to be special, personal and most importantly, based on love.
In the early 2nd century, Christianity was a struggling Jewish sect, still largely undistinguished from Judaism, yet long after the NT documents were written. The earliest extant pieces we have of the Gospels are 3rd and 4th century and most examples are much later medieval versions. It would have been easy to alter the texts to expunge unwanted or controversial positions. With regard to the beloved disciple, this was not done.
Those wanting to push the anti-gay Christian agenda often argue that Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality because he felt it to be understood in Judaism and clearly proscribed. Yes, Judaism did have proscriptions against homosexual behavior, but actually specified male-to-male acts. Lesbianism was proscribed but a punishment is not given – most likely because it was not seen as a “waste” of the man’s “seed”. Yet the same proscriptions exist for kosher rules and divorce in the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as methods of prayer, ritual, and sacrifice, and Jesus speaks specifically about all of these.
Moreover, Jesus forcefully and specifically forbids divorce except in the instance of infidelity. Fifty years ago, neither the Anglican nor the Catholic Church would remarry a divorced person – now both do this. The Church evolved, and even against a clear and unequivocal statement of Jesus. How does it now refuse to acknowledge that no justification for gay-hatred exists in the text?
In truth, all proscriptions against homosexuality in the NT are Pauline. Paul was a trained Pharisee, a student of Gamaliel, therefore would have resisted Hellenization strenuously and seen it as a corrupting force. By his own acknowledgement, Paul brought these biases to every argument. In addition, as the documents of the NT were being decided upon in the late 2nd century, these ‘beloved’ passages could have easily been redacted. They could have been glossed, deëmphasized, or marginalized to be brought more in line with Paul. Yet, they remain a glaring challenge to anyone who would use Scripture to justify exclusionary hatred.
Hatred, or mean-spirited prejudice of any fellow man is nearly impossible in correct humanism and certainly should be to any Christian. ‘Love the sinner, hate the sin’ has become a dangerous caveat carte blanc for all sorts of utterly un-Christian behavior by Christians. Hatred is after all, a finished product, a sentence handed down, even at best, hate is a mental conclusion arrived at after thought and deliberation – hate is therefore a moral judgement, and by definition out of our jurisdiction in regards to humankind.
This is the saddest part of the new appeasement of the Bush administration to the Christian Extremists. It appeases the worst version of Christianity. It appeases the most exclusionary, most judgmental aspects of the faith, rewarding bad, unchristian behavior in favor of mean-spirited censure. Perhaps worst of all, it attempts to do this in the founding document of America, a document that holds religious freedom, not enforcement, as its highest ideal.
If Bush should lose this election, it will be very clear why. I have been a Republican and a Christian my whole life. I believe that national security is the #1 most important issue in America – it is, to be blunt, the thing that makes any other issue possible in the first place. I do not buy the loss of jobs argument, I think tax cuts work, and I think abortion is wrong, I still support the Iraq war and feel that those 500 plus brave men and women saved untolled millions from horrible death, and I even agree that activist judges should simply be arrested and dismissed from office. I believe all this and right now, I don’t know if I’m voting for Bush.
I don’t know because this political ploy is so overtly mean-spirited and opportunistic it that my own sense of fairness and decency is far more offended by the attack than whatever defense could be made of it. I can’t believe I am the only one, even the only Christian to feel this way.
It is my view that Karl Rove decided that Bush had been denied his landslide – economy’s rise slowing, Dems making jobs an issue successfully, the public’s growing disenchantment in Iraq. Karl Rove decided he had to now play the division card. He decided Bush’s best chance for reelection was to force a 1% race. KR now thinks the election could be decided by 1% of the vote. And he only had one card to play to get that 1%. It’s a staggering risk – and shows how serious the Bush camp takes reelection as a restoration v/v Clinton 92, and how possible a Bush defeat is now recognized to be in the White House. It also shows the Bush team has few real plans for Iraq, the economy, or any other major issue.
Karl thinks – we divide the country now on gay marriage, and our chunk will be bigger. I am unconvinced. It’s awfully early to be this desperate, unless you truly have no real hope for PR bumps in the future.
Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com
