Silflay Hraka

While we’re on the subject, I may as well post this letter to Dr. Laura that Clover forwarded to me, she apparently not having an inclination to do it herself. (Yes, there are others here aside from myself, Woundwort and Kehaar–they just never post.)

Near as I can tell, it’s from May of 2000

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality. Recently, she said that as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 & cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, J. Kent Ashcraft, which was posted on the Internet:

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Was Jesus? disapproval of homosexuality so obvious that it did not need declaration? That’s the argument some are using to counter Andrew Sullivan’s observation that the big J was silent on the subject of homosexuality, whereas when it came to divorce, he was a little more adamant.

I raise this simply because they’re often defending their position on the basis of obeying the literal word of the Bible. I framed it in the context of the religious right’s bid to amend the constitution to bar gay citizens from civil marriage. I’ve had many responses, for which I am most grateful. But almost all simply argued that Jesus probably did disapprove of homosexuality, but the Gospel writers didn’t think it necessary to state the obvious. Without dealing with that (perfectly valid) point, I have to say: that wasn’t my question.

Andrew finesses the point, but he shouldn’t have to, and he makes a mistake by calling the argument “perfectly valid,” implying that there’s a certain logic to it when in fact there is none at all.

To the biblical inerrantists, (I’m not one, btw) the words of the Bible were not written by fallible humans doing their best to explain the ineffable, but rather the directly inspired Word of God, direct from his lips to their fingertips. The problem with this approach comes when the believer runs up against the behavioral and dietary proscriptions found in the in the Pentateuch of the Old Testament. What’s a biblical literalist with a taste for pork and lobster sandwiches to do?

Why, he invokes the New Covenant, of course. Jesus is the Franklin Delano Roosevelt of the Bible. He is the New Deal.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Adoption of the New Covenant allows the inerrantist his sandwich and his beliefs! Mind you, the inerrantist still has to gloss over Matthew 5: 17-18

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

but other than that, it’s a win-win situation!

Heck, for many biblical literalists, it’s win-win-win, in that they still feel perfectly comfortable referring back to the Pentateuch in times of need, such as when they feel a pressing urge to mention Sodom and Gomorrah.

Sodom and Gomorrah enters the conversation because, as Sullivan points out above, the vessel of the New Covenant doesn’t really mention homosexuals. When the “But Jesus was mute on the subject” argument is pressed, the fallback position for an inerrantist is the one Sullivan encountered.

However, this is the Son of God we’re talking about. Remember God, omnipresent, omnipotent? If, as the inerrantists claim, the passages found in the Bible are divinely inspired, then it doesn’t matter what the Gospel writers thought about Jesus and homosexuality! The words on the page are not theirs, but rather the Lord’s. It’s not that Jesus’s disapproval of homosexuality was glossed over because it was obvious, but rather that God the omnipotent, who by definition had to have known when and how this debate would occur, instructed his Son to say nothing about it.

From a truly biblically inerrant point of view, what gets left out of the Bible is at least as important as what goes in. Even attempting to argue that the Gospel writers didn’t think it necessary to state the obvious implies that one doesn’t adhere to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and once that position is abandoned, what’s the point? It’s an implicit admission that the basis of one’s arguments is flawed, that the main document one’s religion is based on was composed by human, and therefore fallible, authors.

Once fallibility enters the equation, much of the opposition to homosexuality, on Christian religious grounds at least, becomes moot–or so it would seem logic would dictate. However, as logic is not a fertile ground for much of what constitutes religious faith, the spectacle of biblical literalists unconciously questioning the authorship of their own Bible will probably be with us for some time.

During the Presidential campaign for 2004, it appears obvious that one of Kerry?s strategies is to harp on the fact that he is a decorated Vietnam Veteran. He is a wartime hero whose accomplishments on the battlefield will be brought up at every possible opportunity. America loves a war hero, and Kerry?s camp hopes this part of his history will help him win the support of veterans, and the admiration and votes of the rest of the population. Apparently, this information is not as powerful to some veterans as Kerry would hope it to be.

Take this guy for instance. He is also a Vietnam veteran, but does not seem to think that Kerry?s service outweighs what Kerry did when he returned to America. While Kerry fought in the war and won a Silver Star, the author of this website still views him as a backstabber, who left the war under suspicious tactics, then used his notoriety to protest the very conflict that he participated in. He writes:

Soon after Kerry, as a Navy Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding a Swift boat in Vietnam, was awarded the Silver Star, he used an obscure Navy regulation to leave Vietnam and his crew before completing his tour of duty.

Kerry’s betrayal of American prisoners of war, his blatant disrespect for the families of our missing in action, Vietnam veterans, the military, his support for communist Vietnam and his waffling over the issue of use of force in Iraq proves he is a self promoting Chameleon Senator who cannot be relied on to protect the best interests of the United States.

The tone of this website is not a pleasant one, and this veteran apparently still holds quite a grudge against Kerry for his stand against the conflict. Personally, I do not see the reason for this animosity. In fact, I tend to admire Kerry more for the manner in which he handled this situation, rather than get angry at him for his protests which followed his service. Instead of ducking his responsibilities to the armed services, he volunteered for service, and then began to disagree with the reasoning behind the war.

Being a good citizen of this country does NOT mean that we have to agree with everything that our nation does. Instead, maybe being a good citizen means that we stand up for what we believe in. Perhaps Kerry showed more courage taking part in these protests than he ever had to in Vietnam. His comments do not in any way (to me) show a lack of support for the men and women in the armed services, but shows a disagreement in the way certain situations were handled over there, as well as disdain for the decision to continue sending our troops to that region of the world to fight a war that was not going to be won.

Is JFK a bad American? The veteran who authors that website apparently would say, ?Yes.? I completely disagree. I am surprised that this has not become more of an issue for the Bush camp, especially as the President?s ?service? to the country is now being questioned with gusto. Perhaps we will hear more of this from the Bush campaign as November nears.

Here is a copy of the war statement made by John Kerry to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in April of 1971.

UPDATE: Thanks to Bigwig for this link which describes Senator McCain’s defense of Kerry.