While I'm not returning to blogging just yet (if ever), I wanted to post a response I left to a "Christian" responding to this excellent posting by John Shore. If there's one thing that really bugs me in an online discussion, it's those folks who like to cut-and-paste other people's writings - especially from fundamentalist apologists - without putting any original thought or effort into their comments. I mean sure, if you do not know how to express yourself well than by all means give a few words and perhaps a link to the article you think is relevant to the subject under discussion. Yet save the cut-and-paste jobs, they are truly annoying and are largely ignored. The next pet peeve I have with such cut-and-paste jobs is the mind-numbing illogic used by these fundamentalist apologists being cribbed from. Which brings me to the reason for this post. A commentor used the online article What does the Bible say about homosexuality? by Matt Slick to respond to John Shore's posting and I must say that this is filled with some of the most absurd reasoning I've seen in quite awhile. I find this mentality of "the Bible says 'X' is a sin and that will never change!" to be completely ignorant of how much Christian and Jewish theology have developed and changed over the centuries. With this in mind I decided to take one example of something the Bible and Christians until the time of the Reformation clearly condemned as being sinful has developed and changed since then: the taking of any interest on money and goods, i.e. usury. I'm sure that everyone has been hit with this online and just in case this may help others I want to post my response here at my blog as well. So in honor of the "Christian" commentor at JohnShore.com and in keeping with the reasoning of Slick's article, let's see how usury should be viewed in light of the Bible's teaching (with some editing from my original posting):
There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn usury**. Various verses are cited (out of context) and the verses that people use to show that usury is wrong are explained away. The world wants to change God’s words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires. Nevertheless, the truth stands: The Bible condemns usury as a sin. Let’s look at what it says.
Exodus 22: 25-27: "If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take your neighbor's garment as a pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down. For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin. What will he sleep in? And it will be that when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious."
Deuteronomy 23: 19-20: "You shall not charge interest to your brother -- interest on money or food or anything that is lent out at interest. To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest, that the LORD your God may bless you in all to which you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess."
Leviticus 25: 35-37: "If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother may live with you. You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit."
Nehemiah 5: 10-11: "I also, with my brethren and my servants, am lending them money and grain. Please, let us stop this usury! Restore now to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their olive groves, and their houses, also a hundredth of the money and the grain, the new wine and the oil, that you have charged them."
Psalm 15:5: "He who does not put out his money at usury, Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved."
Jeremiah 15:10: "Woe is me, my mother, That you have borne me, A man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent for interest, Nor have men lent to me for interest. Every one of them curses me."
Ezekiel 18:13: "If he has exacted usury Or taken increase -- Shall he then live? He shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die; His blood shall be upon him."
Luke 6:34: "If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again."
Usury is clearly condemned by the Bible; condemned by the early Church, including ALL the Fathers who commented on the subject and the early Church councils like Nicaea; condemned by Reformers like Martin Luther. It goes against the created order of God. He created us all to live as brothers and sisters, to lend to one another without the taking of interest. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, usury has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Psalm 15:5). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
What should be the Christian’s Response to Usurers?
Just because someone practices usury does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Usury is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.
As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of usurers the same as you would for any other person in sin. The usurer is still made in the image of God — even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him the same dignity as anyone else with whom you come in contact. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don’t compromise your witness for a socially-acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.
Pray tell, Brother Slick, what are you doing to combat the wicked abomination that is usury? What of our Christian brothers and sisters who borrow money/goods at interest or lend money/goods at interest in clear defiance of God’s Word? Worse yet, what of the "Christian" businesses and even churches (!) who have compromised their witness for a socially-acceptable opinion that is void of godliness by borrowing money/goods at interest or lending money/goods at interest? Our whole economic system is built not upon the Word of God but instead upon the worldly views of that perfidious usury-lover and usurer-enabler John Calvin!
** - "Usury (comes from the Medieval Latin usuria, 'interest' or from the Latin usura 'interest') originally meant the charging of interest on loans. This included charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change." – Wikipedia article "Usury"
For more on the history of usury and Christian theology, see the following:
Very interesting debate from a couple of weeks ago regarding DADT and the recent Joint Forces Quarterly article on this subject:
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Comes Out of the Closet - To the Point on KCRW
Okay, Dan Choi of Knights Out doesn't pass much for Gary Sinese's famous movie character but Donnelly certainly resembles Forrest Gump - without the charming innocence.
DADT advocates still need a much better spokesperson for their cause, although as a staunch opponent of this law perhaps I shouldn't say anything more on that...
Oh yeah, one more thing: can you feel that "hope and change" yet? Me neither.
(this is also posted over on Gay Patriot)
The winning essay from the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition criticizing the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) ban against gays openly serving in the military appears in the upcoming issue of Joint Forces Quarterly. This journal is "published for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" and with regards to this essay, The Boston Globe reports:
The views do not necessarily reflect those of Pentagon leaders, but their appearance in a publication billed as the Joint Chiefs’ “flagship’’ security studies journal signals that the top brass now welcomes a debate in the military over repealing the 1993 law that requires gays to hide their sexual orientation, according to several longtime observers of the charged debate over gays in the military.
While decisions on which articles to publish are made by the journal’s editorial board, located at the defense university, a senior military official said yesterday that the office of Admiral Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman who is the nation’s top military officer, reviewed the article before it was published.
The 1993 “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law was a political compromise reached after much emotional debate based on religion, morality, ethics, psychological rationale, and military necessity. What resulted was a law that has been costly both in personnel and treasure. In an attempt to allow homosexual Servicemembers to serve quietly, a law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of “equality for all,” places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas, and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve. Furthermore, after a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly. In fact, the necessarily speculative psychological predictions are that it will not impact combat effectiveness. Additionally, there is sufficient empirical evidence from foreign militaries to anticipate that incorporating homosexuals will introduce leadership challenges, but the challenges will not be insurmountable or affect unit cohesion and combat effectiveness.
Interesting way to take the Bible literally and past customs in defense of traditional marriage...
I was sent this "Statement From Assemblyman Greg Ball On Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach" by Christopher Arnold, Communications Director for Greg Ball for Congress. Now I know nothing about Messrs. Ball or Arnold, nor do I follow New York politics since I live in Virginia. However, I do find this statement intriguing coming from what appears to be a conservative Republican running for state office. Well, from the campaign website he appears to be conservative on fiscal, 2nd Amendment and defense matters at least. No doubt some Southern conservatives would raise an eyebrow at the conservative cred of a New York Republican, but that could be just a regional thing. At any rate, here is the statement:
The recent report of Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, among other less publicized accounts, has made many realize that the current policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” needs to be thoroughly reviewed.
Lt. Col. Fehrenbach has flown numerous combat missions and has been decorated for heroism.
As an Air Force Academy graduate and former ranking member of the New York State Assembly Veterans Affairs Committee, I believe strongly that it is time for the current administration to consider putting a moratorium on the current “don't ask, don't tell” policy affecting our military, until its impacts can be thoroughly reviewed.
As a veteran and member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I will give serious consideration to urging my legislative colleagues to express our shared concerns with the current policy that forces the involuntary discharge of American heroes like Lt. Col Fehrenbach.
Well after seeing this, it all becomes clear to me now...
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Dan Choi Is Gay | ||||
| ||||
In three parts over at Ramble Redhead. Very interesting with Choi telling of his growing up, life at West Point, his service in the US Army over in Iraq, and of course coming out. Well worth listening to and I hope that the good Louie will join the fight against the unjust DADT law with a worthy group of gay vets like Servicemembers United. His voice is certainly a powerful one in this debate and though he is doing well on his own, especially with Knights Out, having others to "guard his back" in the DADT minefield doesn't hurt.
You can find these podcast interviews here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. Enjoy!
Spoiler: Choi's first-generation Korean parents were oblivious to his being gay, so much so that when they suspected their older son of being gay they sought his advice on how to "change" him. Ironically the son they thought was gay is actually straight while the "straight" son they sought advice from is gay. Priceless.
UPDATE: On second thought, after exploring the Knights Out website a bit more it appears that Lt. Choi has quite a number of worthy souls guarding his back. Perhaps then his group and others like Servicemembers United can coordinate their efforts to bring DADT to the demise it so richly deserves.
(an edited version of this is also posted over at Gay Patriot)
From 1st Lt. Daniel W. Choi, Infantry officer from the New York Army National Guard:
The Department of the Army sent a letter discharging me on April 23rd. I will not lie to you; the letter is a slap in the face. It is a slap in the face to me. It is a slap in the face to my soldiers, peers and leaders who have demonstrated that an infantry unit can be professional enough to accept diversity, to accept capable leaders, to accept skilled soldiers.
My subordinates know I’m gay. They don’t care. They are professional.
Further, they are respectable infantrymen who work as a team. Many told me that they respect me even more because I trusted them enough to let them know the truth. Trust is the foundation of unit cohesion.
After I publicly announced that I am gay, I reported for training and led rifle marksmanship. I ordered hundreds of soldiers to fire live rounds and qualify on their weapons. I qualified on my own weapon. I showered after training and slept in an open bay with 40 other infantrymen. I cannot understand the claim that I “negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard.” I refuse to accept this statement as true.
As an infantry officer, I am not accustomed to begging. But I beg you today: Do not fire me. Do not fire me because my soldiers are more than a unit or a fighting force – we are a family and we support each other. We should not learn that honesty and courage leads to punishment and insult. Their professionalism should not be rewarded with losing their leader. I understand if you must fire me, but please do not discredit and insult my soldiers for their professionalism.
When I was commissioned I was told that I serve at the pleasure of the President. I hope I have not displeased anyone by my honesty. I love my job. I want to deploy and continue to serve with the unit I respect and admire. I want to continue to serve our country because of everything it stands for.
Please do not wait to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Please do not fire me.
I'm not a fan of MSNBC or Rachel Maddow, but this is a good interview of an outstanding Infantry officer and Iraq War vet, who is now being kicked out for speaking "the three most powerful words".
I know that this has been floating around the web for a couple of weeks now, but it's a good rebuttal to the outright lies being put out by religious right groups about same-sex marriage:
h/t - Waking Up Now
An excellent op-ed in today's New York Times by Owen West, a Marine and veteran of the Iraq War. Some highlights:
I finally had the opportunity the other night to watch the Johnny Symons documentary Ask Not on gays serving in the military under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Last summer the guys at Gay Patriot and I had the privilege of doing a podcast interview with Symons and a few of the "stars" of this film, including Jarrod Chlapowski, Alexander Nicholson and Al Steinmann of Servicemembers United.
Where Symons does his best work in this film is with the excellent interviews of gay veterans. One of the finest examples is with "Perry", a gay soldier serving in Iraq. Because of the DADT policy his identity had to be concealed but he had some of the most moving scenes in the film, including at the end. The scenes with Chlapowski, Nicholson, Steinmann and Fred Fox during their Call to Duty Tour were compelling, especially with their personal stories of military service as well as their efforts to engage the public on repealing the ban against gays. If this documentary convinced me of anything, it is that the work of these men to bring about change through constructive dialogue while maintaining the obvious respect they have for the military, which I share, has a far greater chance of success than ill-advised publicity stunts. More on the latter in a moment. While all of these veterans had very interesting stories I found myself most identifying with that of Fox, probably more because although I do not know him and we served in different branches, our enlistments were roughly at the same time in the early 1990s. I’ve been impressed with Fox from previous interviews I’ve listened to and the material in this film reinforced this. I enjoyed the "personal stuff" about all of these men and it strengthened the documentary in putting a human face to gay veterans, as well as challenged ridiculous stereotypes.
The weakest portions of this documentary were where Symons included footage of events with Soulforce protesting the ban against gays. The anger and need to "take action" I can understand but the effectiveness of their efforts is highly doubtful. In the film they came across as spoiled brats with little or no understanding of the military, let alone respect for the organization they claimed to want to serve in. The most glaring example of this is in one scene where Soulforce protestors take advantage of a Marine recruiter who treated them well, only to have them "invade" his office when his back was turned. All of this was done just so they could get arrested to make their point. Putting aside the stupidity of inflicting these kinds of stunts on persons having zero control over the policy, Congress makes the laws after all and not the military, if this Marine recruiter had any sympathy for gay servicemembers before this incident one wonders how their poor behavior may have changed that. I could have done without just about all the scenes on Soulforce, with the possible exception of the brief interview of one female Navy veteran discharged for being a lesbian. I would have liked to see her interviewed more, like the others were, outside of the Soulforce nonsense. Barring that, Symons should have found other gay veterans to interview who are also working against the ban like Pepe Johnson of Integrity in Service. This would have been more in keeping with the rest of this film and far better than the material with Soulforce. Gay veterans instead of gay activists.
Probably the most surprising to me watching this documentary was how quickly the anger I had at former President Bill Clinton (D), the spineless coward who signed DADT into law, and Congressional politicians from the early 1990s, like former Senator Sam Nunn (GA-D) and his asinine "investigations", came rushing back. The nonsense from DADT proponents in this film only made it hotter. Yet where Symons excelled, thanks to many of the "stars" mentioned above, was taking that anger and focusing it towards constructive means. Overall I’d say this documentary was well-made and I'd recommend that anyone interested in this topic, see it for themselves.
(this is also posted over on Gay Patriot)
A very interesting interview I came across yesterday with Captain Steve Hall (USN - ret.), a gay veteran and former nuclear submarine commander. Hall is involved with USNA Out, a group for LGBT Naval Academy alumni. He is also the driving force behind a new documentary film, currently scheduled to premier in Summer 2009, about LGBT Naval Academy alumni and the DADT policy banning gays from openly serving in the military. This film should do much to highlight the service of these vets and I'm very encouraged by what he said about this project in this recent interview:
"When I was a midshipman, there were no gay or lesbian role models," he said. "All we ever heard was when someone was kicked out."
He hopes the film will help people see that gay service members exist and have achieved great things, and that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy - which requires gays in the military to hide their sexual identities or risk expulsion - is a "folly."
"This is another way to tell our story and unveil the masks of who we are. We need to educate our fellow alumni and anyone who will pay attention," said Jeff Petrie, the founder of the gay alumni group USNA Out, who has agreed to be interviewed for the film. "When I look back at how other minorities were treated in military history and how far we've come with how those people are now part of an integrated team, I know the same will be true for us one day. And I want to take advantage of every opportunity I can to move that along." [...]
While some alumni - particularly those who were kicked out - are bitter about what happened to them, that will not be the focus of the film, Hall said.
"I'm going to do everything I can to make sure the alumni look great. We're all products of the academy, and the academy does a really good job of developing people's character," he said. "I don't want to show dirty laundry." (Baltimore Sun)
I haven't really had the chance to follow the hearings conducted by the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel concerning the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, banning gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military. From the video clips I've seen on You Tube and press reports (e.g. this National Review column), it appears that I've been missing some dramatic political theater. I guess part of the reason I haven't been following this more closely is that the status of DADT will not change this election year and the same tired arguments from the pro-ban side can be overly tedious. I suppose hearings like this one though do help lay the groundwork for eventual repeal, which I hope happens soon. Yet I read today's column by Dana Milbank and think he makes a good point: pro-ban advocates like Elaine Donnelly hurt their cause more and more each time they open their mouths. From what Milbank and others report, along with Donnelly's own testimony, I'm somewhat encouraged that the policy's days are numbered. While Donnelly's performance yesterday enraged folks like disabled Marine veteran Eric Alva, who opposes the ban, it also helped in "torpedoing her own ship". I do not know Alva personally but was privileged to meet him at a SLDN event last year. My impression of him is that he is a good man who has sacrificed a lot in service to our country. Donnelly's inability to show discretion and tact in defending her position was unwise and insulting to veterans like Alva, which perhaps in the long-run will help in repealing this stupid ban.
Perhaps most interesting to me though from Milbank's column is this exchange between Donnelly and a Republican Congressman, who was very unimpressed with her shoddy performance:
Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) pointed a finger at [retired Navy Capt. Joan] Darrah and glared at Donnelly. "Would you please tell me, Miss Donnelly, why I should give one twit about this woman's sexual orientation, when it didn't interfere one bit with her service?"
Donnelly said something about "forced intimacy."
Shays cut her off. "You're saying she has no right to serve her country because she happens to have a different sexual orientation than you." [...]
Shays, his voice rising with Yankee indignation, continued to lecture Donnelly: "I think the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is unpatriotic. I think it's counterproductive. In fact, I think it is absolutely cruel."
Donnelly said something about her respect for the service of gay veterans. "How do you respect their service?" Shays demanded. "You want them out."
Donnelly seemed to have unified the lawmakers -- against her. The next questioner was Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy vice admiral. "I couldn't ask it better than you did," he told Shays. (Washington Post)
A whopping 75% support among the general public according to new polling by The Washington Post & ABC News. Combined with the recently released study by retired military officers that "allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion", and we're seeing a seismic shift in public attitudes that DADT simply cannot hope to withstand much longer. God willing, gays & lesbians will be able to freely and openly serve in the military one day soon...
(this is also posted at Gay Patriot)
Last night I was privileged to be part of an enjoyable interview on the Gay Patriot's America podcast, hosted by my fellow blogger Bruce Carroll. Our guests included award-winning documentary director/producer Johnny Symon, who was instrumental in the making of the film Ask Not that is currently making the rounds to rave reviews. This film examines the history of the DADT policy banning gays from openly serving in the military, as well as those soldiers it affects and folks who are trying to get it repealed. 3 veterans who are gay and appear in this documentary also took part in the interview, including retired Rear Admiral (USCG) Al Steinman, "The most senior military officer to self-identify as gay (yet, anyway)", along with Jarrod Chlapowski and Alex Nicholson of Servicemembers United. It was truly a pleasure and an honor to speak with all of these gentlemen. For some reason I was a bit nervous helping Bruce conduct this interview (I have to cringe hearing a couple of stutters and loss of my train of thought), but overall I thought it went well.
You can listen to GayPatriot's America here:
