Robert-Dailey blogRobert Dailey (12)    Robert Dailey   http://robertdailey.com Donald Rumsfeld: The Last of The Old, Cold, Warriors?Posted Friday, November 10, 2006 (1 year 293 days ago.) Viewed 115 times. Becoming an anachronism is difficult. Being part of an anachronistic philosophy is equally as difficult. Rumsfeld’s resignation is the demarcation line between the “big brother, big policeman," attitudes and government functionaries that have existed since the end of World War II. These attitudes began with the Soviet usurpation of Eastern Europe, which also spawned McCarthyism, the Now, over a decade after the fall of the There are others, like Dick Cheney, who also served at the fringes of the Cold War. Now, faced with golfing and writing their memoirs, some still prefer to dally in the politics of the world with the same fervor that they applied to their roles when there was at least a perceived reason for those roles. Will things change with the resignation of Rumsfeld? Probably not right away. Realistic and permanent changes will be left to the next administration. I suppose that Donald Rumsfeld’s phone bill at his ranch in But, Rumsfeld’s resignation shows that even among those Old, Cold, Warriors themselves, there is less loyalty to each other and more loyalty to the polls. It signals a change in the wind. Hopefully, it will also be a wind of change. 
Permalink Comments (1) The Fall of Ted Haggard: Homosexuality or Unfaithfulness?Posted Wednesday, November 08, 2006 (1 year 295 days ago.) Viewed 139 times. What is the real sin of Ted Haggard? That he lied to his family, and engaged in an “extramarital" affair? That he lied (through omission) to his congregation and violated one of the 10 Commandments? That his affair was with a man instead of a woman? Is his sin greater that that of, say, Jimmy Swaggart? All of the above? It’s clear that there are a number of separate issues here. So, without challenging the entire code of Judeo-Christian morality, here are several perceptions. Is Ted Haggard’s sin the extramarital affair itself, in which he allowed his libido to override his solemn and sacred commitment to wife and family? The harm that was caused by his affair goes beyond his lack of libido control. Other people were emotionally harmed by his actions, not only his family, but his congregation as well, and the resolution of that situation is between Haggard and his family, between him and his congregation, and between him and his God. But are we really begging the question here? Is the real issue the fact that the sex was with a man instead of a woman. After all, we could say, Jimmy Swaggart violated one the 10 Commandments, but at least it was with a woman. Does that make one transgression more or less egregious than the other? One could argue that, since homosexuality is specifically banned by Leviticus in what Christians call the Old Testament, Haggard’s sin may be more grievous than those of others. But there are a lot of rules in Leviticus, as any student of the Torah will tell you. Leviticus prohibits the eating of pork, hare, shellfish, camels, hawks, swans, pelicans, weasels, ostrich, lizards and moles, among other things. It does, however, permit eating of grasshoppers, and presumably crickets. Emus and rheas didn’t exist, nor were they known in the Middle East when Leviticus was written (circa 600 B.C. or B.C.E., depending on your point of view). Leviticus also says that a woman who gives birth is unclean for anywhere from a month to three months (depending on the sex of the child) Does that mean that any Christian woman who has a baby must go through a purification ritual after waiting a month or more? There are many, many bans and transgressions named in Leviticus, entire chapters devoted to the proper cleaning of food, utensils, and people, and only one line (in Chapter 18), about homosexuality. Interestingly, in the next chapter of Leviticus, there is another admonishment: “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge for wrong done to thee by thy fellows; thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; thy Lord is his." In the New Testament, Jesus uses almost the same exact words, when the Pharisees (traditionalists), trying to trick him, asked him “What is the greatest commandment." His answer was,"Love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, they whole soul and thy whole mind." And then he added something: “And the second (most important –editor’s parenthesis) is like unto it: Love thy neighbor as thyself." What Haggard did was wrong. There is no question about it. Married, loving, heterosexual couples will tell you this. His unfaithfulness to his wife, his children and his congregation has caused hurt, anger, and a number of other conflicting emotions. But homosexual or lesbian couples who have loving and caring relationships, many of whom consider themselves Christian, will tell you the same thing. Not all homosexuals are libidinous, sex-crazed individuals who will have sex with anyone at the drop of a hat. Many are loyal and faithful in their relationships. Interestingly, there is no mention of homosexuality in the New Testament. If Christians wish to follow Leviticus to the letter, then they will have to give up eating pork, clams, lobster, oysters, shrimp, crab, and a number of other delicious foods that they have become accustomed to eating. Women will have to be considered unclean after giving birth, and when they are having a period. Live sacrifices of unblemished animals must be made. The year of jubilee must be honored, when everyone is forgiven of debts, and their land restored. Land must not be sold in perpetuity. And so it goes. Many contend that Haggard’s real sin is one of unfaithfulness, and he owes amends and emotional restitution, and honesty to those he has harmed, i.e. his wife, his family, his congregation, and those he misled by hypocrisy. In that vein, we can also say that he owes amends to the man he had sex with.
Permalink Comments (2) |
Archives:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
