This is a genuinely charming public marriage proposal!

Enjoy!

Joe H.

Obama Comes Out - Romney Hides Out -UPDATE

President Obama came out in favor of same sex marriage.  Good for him.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, said he doesn’t support same sex marriage.  When asked why he doesn’t support same sex marriage, he repeated the oft stated “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.”

I know I am repeating myself, but I feel compelled to point out, once again, that “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman” is neither an argument nor a reason – it’s a statement of preference.  At best it is a statement indicating an unusually strong commitment to an unexamined Platonic “form.”

Consider the interpretive options for this statement.  First, the proposition “marriage is between one man and one woman” is the relevant assertion - anyone who makes this statement can be assumed to believe it.

But what does someone who asserts “marriage is between one man and one woman” believe?  As a statement of fact, the proposition is demonstrably false.  There are thousands of legally valid same-sex marriages in existence in numerous countries, including the United States.  There are also many legally valid polygamous marriages in various parts of the world.   No one in their right mind could be advancing this proposition as a factual assessment of actual legal marriages.

Those familiar with Plato’s theory of the forms might recognize an implicit appeal to the eternal unchanging idea of “marriage.”  Plato believed that each particular thing (is what it is because it) partakes of an eternal “form” or idea.  The form itself is unchanging and complete.  It exists in a realm accessible only to the intellect.

According to Plato, particular men are men because they embody the form “man.”  Embodiment of the form “man” is what distinguishes men from women.  Conversely, particular women are women because they embody the form “woman.”  Embodiment of the form “Woman” is what distinguishes women from men.

In other words, things are what they are because they embody an eternal unchanging “essence” that is common to all things of that type. 

Many opponents of same-sex marriage have something like this in mind when they insist that “marriage is between one man and one woman.”  They are appealing to (what they perceive is) an eternal unchanging idea – an idea defined by God in the process of his creation.  On this theory, same sex marriage is an absurdity because “marriage,” by inalterable definition, is between one man and one woman.

Unfortunately, this is not a proper application of Plato’s epistemology.  For Plato, a form is intellectually grasped through a process known as the “dialectic.”  The dialectic involves an attempt to articulate the essence of a thing, based on what can be observed about particular things of that type, followed by a critique of the articulated essence, followed by a refined articulation of a thing’s essence, etc., until a stable and workable definition emerges.

In other words, Plato would not start with an eternal unchanging definition of “man” and then use it to distinguish particular men from particular women.  Plato would instead examine particular men, in an attempt to isolate what they all shared in common, particularly in contrast to women, and then subject his idea to rational scrutiny so as to refine his idea of “man,” until it provided a stable and workable insight regarding the essence of “man.”

This is precisely what the opponents of “same-sex marriage” refuse to do.  Like Plato, they subscribe to a theory of “forms.”  But unlike Plato, they insist upon a definition of marriage that they will not submit to the dialectic process.  Their invocation of Plato’s theory, to the extent that they realize they are invoking Plato, amounts to their insistence that marriage be defined so as to exclude gays.  They are not trying to grasp the essence of marriage by examining particular marriages.  They are attempting to prevent proposed “gay marriages” from being considered relevant to our understanding of the institution.

This indicates that the proposition “marriage is between one man and one woman” is best translated as “I prefer that marriage be defined as between one man and one woman.”  And this proposition translates fairly straightforwardly to the proposition “I prefer that gays be excluded from the institution of marriage.”

Okay.  Fine.  But then I have to ask, “why do you prefer that gays be excluded from the institution of marriage?”  And it won’t do to simply assert that “marriage is between one man and one woman.”

Joe H.

 UPDATE

This is a pretty fair assessment    of Mitt Romney's response to the revelation that he gang assaulted a weaker boy in high school.



.

Ode to Obama and Romney

I was thinking of posting a list of reasons why I will not be voting for President Obama this year - and sure as hell won't be voting for Mitt Romney.  But I discovered this morning that   someone else has captured my sentiments perfectly. 
 
I find it astonishing that so many conservatives see Obama as a radical leftist.  There is absolutely no evidence that Obama is anything but a pragmatic, centrist conservative.  The fact that he is viewed as a radical by so many on the right illustrates, to my mind, the psychologically distorting power of tribal partisan allegiance.

That said, I predict, for reasons 1-4 cited in Rose’s post, that the Obama presidency will end up doing greater damage to the nation than the Bush presidency.  By refusing to prosecute criminal elites within our government and financial system, as the law requires, President Obama has created the impunity state.  The (now working) presumption that elite officials and corporate executives are immune from prosecution when they break our laws will eventually work far more harm to our nation than anything done under the Bush presidency.  Mark my words on this.

I like President Obama, and agree with him on most issues.  I'm confident that he will beat Mitt Romney like a drum come November.  But I can’t support him.

For the record, I also used to respect Mitt Romney.  His record of accomplishment is quite remarkable.  And he is, underneath the "severe conservative" façade, a reasonable man.  Unfortunately, Mr. Romney has repeatedly demonstrated a cravenness so deep that I cannot bear the thought of voting for him.  A man who passed up the opportunity to denounce Rush Limbaugh for repeatedly calling a young female political opponent a “slut,” lacks character, plain and simple.

Sigh!

Joe H.

The Upside of GOP Intolerance

This post by Timothy Noah is highly worth reading. It illustrates the impossible task facing Mitt Romney as he proceeds to the general election - the task of moving back to the political center.

The problem, put simply, is that movement conservatives have become “open” extremists. They’ve convinced themselves that their views on social and economic issues reflect the majority of the country and, therefore, they no longer feel any need to disguise or soften their positions, or to brook any compromise.

Hence Romney’s endorsement of the Paul Ryan budget.

Hence Romney’s support for draconian measures at the state level to encourage self-deportation by illegal immigrants.

Hence Romney’s endorsement of Mississippi’s “Personhood Amendment.”

Hence Romney’s description of himself as a “severe conservative” (whatever that is).

I agree with Noah that this is a good thing. The fact that Mitt Romney did not feel free to denounce Rush Limbaugh for calling Goergetown law student Sandra Fluke a“slut,” the fact that Romney denounced a national health care reform law almost identical to the program he implemented in Massachusetts - and which he proclaimed was an appropriate model for national reform, and the fact that he is now unwilling to defend his openly gay policy aide, Richard Grenell, from anti-gay bigots, is great news. The GOP no longer believes it needs to hide who they are - and they won’t let Romney do it for them.

Best news I’ve gotten in awhile. Joe H.

Ayn Rand vs. Thomas Aquinas

Ayn Rand’s philosophy, known as “Objectivism,” elevates selfishness to the highest human virtue.  It celebrates individual liberty, “lassiez faire" capitalism and rejects all forms of government driven wealth redistribution

Paul Ryan used to hand out copies of “Atlas Shrugged,” Ms. Rand’s most famous novel, to all of his congressional staffers.  Moreover, his budget plan - a plan that Mitt Romney endorsed as “marvelous”- would slash social spending on the poor and elderly to an extent that Ms. Rand is likely to come out of the grave and kiss Paul Ryan on the mouth if it gets enacted.

But things appear to have changed recently.  Regarding his alleged devotion to Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan recently told the National Review that he rejects her philosophy.  “It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my world-view. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don’t give me Ayn Rand."

Oh Really?  Thomas Aquinas - the philosopher/theologian who famously insisted that:

“Man should not consider his material possession his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need.”

Well what do you know.  Paul Ryan endorses socialism!  Now that’s news!

Joe Huster

"Stand Your Ground" Conservatives

One thing that puzzles me about Florida’s “stand your ground” law is that it was championed by “conservatives.”

For hundreds of years English common law (i.e., the organic body of law developed slowly, case by case, by English judges beginning around the eleventh century – and the law that formed the basis of our legal system), held that a person facing a threat inside his home could use deadly force to repel the attacker, but a person threatened outside of his home could not resort to deadly force without first attempting to retreat from the danger.

The rule, known as “castle law,” presumed that a person confronted inside his home (or castle) had no place to retreat to, and so had no duty to retreat. However, a person threatened in a public place might be able to retreat and, thus, to reduce violence and its associated harms, the law imposed a duty to retreat whenever possible.

Example: I’m in a bar and a guy comes up to me and says “I don’t like the cut of your jib. I’m going to beat your head in.” Castle law required those of us with bad jibs to exit the bar, if possible, until the authorities arrived. We could only resort to force if it became impossible to leave.
But Florida conservatives decided that castle law was wimpy and enacted a “stand your ground” law that allows people who “reasonably” feel threatened by another person in public to defend themselves without attempting to retreat. A person who defends himself under these circumstances in Florida is immunized from criminal or civil liability.

Why do I mention this? Because one of the central tenets of conservative thought has been that organic systems, developed over long periods of time, embody wisdom that progressive “reformers” easily overlook. Conservatives have long urged caution in making changes to social institutions and practices that have evolved organically. Look at the tenacity with which some conservatives have fought against changes to marriage law, and before that to racial roles, and before that to male/female roles.

What puzzles me is that “Florida conservatives” voted to ignore a common law rule that had been created and refined over hundreds of years of actual case experience, to give Floridians new “stand your ground” rights. Did it ever occur to them that there might be a reason for the castle law rule? Did they read any of the past cases? Did they consult the judges’reasons?

Did they forget they were conservatives?

Beats me. But I’m glad we still have a duty to retreat in Hawaii. I’m not ashamed to admit that I’ve got a bad jib and need to leave the bar.

Joe Huster

Coming Out

I haven't posted much in the last month, after staring a series on "rights."  I will get back to that topic and try to post more consistently.

However, I do wan't to post this note that I distributed to certain members of my church, so that everyone can know where I'm coming from on a couple of key issues facing us.  I hope you find it worthwhile

*****

Let me share a couple of thoughts

There are two distinct ways of approaching the scriptures as a resource for moral insight.   The first and most common method is to treat the scriptures as a “criterion” for moral truth.  A person who approaches the scriptures as a “criterion” for moral truth asks the following question when confronted with a moral issue - what do the scriptures teach about the subject?  For this person, the entire difficulty - if there is any - is in figuring out what the scriptures teach.  Once this person believes that she knows what the scripture teaches, she has no further need for moral reasoning; no need to ask “do the scriptures get it right?

The second method is to approach the scriptures as a “source” for moral insight, but not as a criterion for moral insight.  A person who approaches the scripture in this manner acknowledges that the scriptures contain moral insight, even profound insight, but does not assume scriptural inerrancy.  For this person, “thus says the lord” is not a convincing argument, particularly when what the “lord” seems to be saying is obviously wrong.

I confess that I am FIRMLY in the latter camp.  All of us are on some issues.  All of us know that the scripture’s endorsement of slavery, or God’s alleged command to Saul to kill every man, woman, child and animal in an act of war, do not provide sound moral guidance.  We instinctively acknowledge that additional explanation is needed to mitigate the message of these passages.  That is because, taken at face value, the wrongfulness of their moral advice is impossible to deny.

However, on most moral issues, the vast majority of our fellow believers stick with the first approach.  It is simpler, works fairly well on a wide range of conduct, and wards off a lot of unnecessary doubt.

Why don’t I take that approach?  The short answer is, “I can’t.”   I’ve developed an unshakable conviction that the level of justification one has for believing a proposition is directly proportional to one's willingness to subject that proposition to genuine scrutiny - and that goes for scriptural propositions as well.  The only way to know if the moral guidance provided by the scriptures is sound is to test that guidance against our most defensible moral convictions.

But to do this, I have to be willing to entertain the possibility that the scripture’s guidance, or at least our current understanding of it, is wrong.  If I am unwilling to entertain the possibility that a particular scriptural claim is false, no matter how false it looks (either on its face or after critical scrutiny), then I am unwilling to subject that claim to genuine scrutiny and, thus, have no reason for believing it to be true. I am simply assuming it to be true and sticking to my guns, evidence or arguments be damned.

But hey, I can do that with any proposition - Barak Obama is a Kenyan socialist and closet Muslim!  Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Now, I whole-heartedly believe that the scriptures are divinely inspired and provide tremendously important insight into the human condition - including human morality.  But I don’t believe that because someone told me it was true, or because I am supposed to believe it as part of a creed.  I believe it because I have studied and reflected on the scriptures, and listened to other people’s reflections, and have encountered many of those insights myself.  In this respect I am a very traditional Christian.

However, my inability - or unwillingness as many would describe it - to accept scriptural teaching that appears to be wrong, makes me a pretty scary dude to many of my fellow believers.  I understand that and accept the consequences.  But I do believe that my approach is best and intend to stick with it.  I really have no other choice.

Which brings me to the issue of homosexuality.  The Apostle Paul specifically denounced homosexual activity several times - I think it is foolish to deny that.  Moreover, I grew up in about as homophobic an environment as one can imagine.  As a young Christian at the age of twenty, I was categorically convinced that homosexuality was sinful and felt as “icky” about it as I could.

However, in my mid-twenties, I began to study philosophy - moral philosophy in particular.  Anyone trained in moral philosophy learns, by deeply ingrained habit, to do one very sensible thing - to demand that their beliefs be justified by reasons.  By the mid 1990’s, I was in graduate school and Christians were becoming very concerned about homosexuality.  So it was inevitable that I would eventually ask myself, “What reasons do I have for thinking that homosexuality is immoral?”

I thought about this question for several years - read many articles discussing the subject from a moral perspective, talked to many people - and I eventually reached the following conclusion: I had no good reason to think homosexuality was immoral.  I had originally accepted that view because the bible endorsed it and I felt “icky” about gayness.  But I realized that this was an inadequate foundation for my belief and I eventually abandoned it.

By the way, the “ick” feeling eventually ebbed as I got to know gay people.  So much for it being a natural warning implanted in me by the almighty.

My best moral analysis is that “being gay” is morally neutral - it is a harmless variation on a dominant natural theme (heterosexual attraction) akin in significance to being left-handed.  I don’t know what causes this variation, or for how many it is the result of a fixable problem.  I do know that approximately 11 million people in our country (a population equal to the State of Ohio ) find themselves sexually and romantically attracted to members of the same sex and that, for them, their orientation is inalterable.

As a Christian, I am very concerned about the well-being of these 11 million people.  I don’t see how denying gays the opportunity to participate in our most important social institution (marriage) helps non-gays or the institution of marriage itself.  In fact, their exclusion threatens the perceived legitimacy of marriage as a practice for an increasingly large number of people.   Moreover, I certainly see the numerous ways in which the exclusion harms, marginalizes, and stigmatizes gay people.  I see this and wonder, “How can we continue to treat Gays in this manner and claim to love them.”  What good reason do we have for imposing so much harm and disability on gays, simply because they are sexually attracted to members of their own sex?

None whatsoever, as far as I can see.

Joe H.