Listening to a Right-wing, call-in talk radio show this evening, I heard a caller claim to be a Vietnam War verteran who had never been asked if he was gay and had not known any soldiers who had been asked. The DJ responded, "Because you don't care, right?" And the caller agreed. At this point they both went into a brief discussion about their view that the repeal of DADT is solely about the Left wanting to "use the military to create social policy." The DJ then vehemently stated, "The military is not about creating social policy; it's about defending America!"
I found this quite interesting from a logical perspective. It seemed to me that if the caller had never been asked, and neither the caller nor the DJ cared about whether soldiers are gay or not, and the military is only about defending America, then the obvious question that they were both missing was, "Which wing, Right or Left, was actually "using the military to create social policy"?
The Right wing created this dilemma in the first place through their bigotry against gays in the military, insisting that gays should not be allowed to serve in America's military, which both, the caller and DJ, said didn't matter. It seems to me that DADT was the use of the military to create social policy by the Right and the REPEAL of DADT is merely UNDOING the Right-wing's "using the military to create social policy."
I found this quite interesting from a logical perspective. It seemed to me that if the caller had never been asked, and neither the caller nor the DJ cared about whether soldiers are gay or not, and the military is only about defending America, then the obvious question that they were both missing was, "Which wing, Right or Left, was actually "using the military to create social policy"?
The Right wing created this dilemma in the first place through their bigotry against gays in the military, insisting that gays should not be allowed to serve in America's military, which both, the caller and DJ, said didn't matter. It seems to me that DADT was the use of the military to create social policy by the Right and the REPEAL of DADT is merely UNDOING the Right-wing's "using the military to create social policy."
Is it just me, or is this pure blind hypocrisy or is it an intentional attempt at deception on the part of the caller and the DJ? Could it be just plain stupidity?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Beth Winegarner
SnippytheGrammarDog
Paul Nevins
Chauncey DeVega
Belinda T.
Erica K
Salon.com
Comments
I am experiencing the backwardness of America first-hand these days as I encounter these individuals every day, now, face-to-face. While I find it intriguing, it is also producing a variety of other emotions that I'm attempting to control, adapt to, and often to override.
Based on some of the writings you've produced in the past, I think you must understand some of that, at least. Seeing it on the TV or reading about it simply does not equate with encountering these individual face-to-face.
I considered the “blind” form of hypocrisy only as an afterthought; I initially felt only contempt as I listened to this conversation between the caller and the DJ. My problem is that I don’t know which is worse; the possibility that these people are just this idiotically blind, or that their hypocrisy is maliciously conscious.
That these two fools can't or won't see something so obvious says all that needs be said about their critical thinking skills.
The Bible “made it not OK to be gay.” The cancerous dominance of christianity’s corruption of that book when Rome started to succumb to the poison of Christianity led to all kinds of horrendous misconceptions about reality that continue to this day.
As far as American military rejection of gays is concerned, that existed as early as the American Revolution. George Washington discharged the first American soldier for homosexual acts.
1778:General George Washington approved the dishonorable discharge of Lieutenant Frederick Gotthold Enslin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Gotthold_Enslin
1942: Separation policy: Previous to World War II, sexually active homosexuals could be prosecuted under the Articles of War.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mili3.htm
I’ve always found the fact that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions use the phrase “crimes against nature” ironic, when, in actuality, it is those religions that are crimes against nature.
Regarding “willfully blind hypocrisy”: would that, then, become malicious? It seems it would.
You write, “That these two fools can't or won't see something so obvious says all that needs be said about their critical thinking skills.”
Where I live, the skills of these two are the dominant examples of critical thinking. I’m finding that my direct contact with human beings who actually think like this to be, well, frankly, a little chilling. My personal perception is that this bodes ominously for America, and perhaps humanity.
One thing I have noticed is that the recently-released report on DADT is being given a positive spin that is inconsistent with the findings. Let me start by first saying that I don't have a personal stake in DADT; either way it doesn't affect me. My concern is the extent to which the repeal might affect the ability of the military to accomplish its mission.
Looking at the actual details of the report, to me the findings are rather disturbing:
44 percent of respondents with combat experience in the last ten years said that having a gay or lesbian member of the unit would negatively or very negatively affect unit effectiveness in the field or at sea.
28 percent of respondents said they would talk to a leader to see if they could avoid being housed with a gay or lesbian.
27 percent said that repeal of DADT would negatively affect the likelihood that they would recommend military service to others.
24 percent said that they would leave or think about leaving the service sooner than planned.
28 percent said having a gay or lesbian member of the unit would negatively affect morale.
It's pretty much like that in any category you choose -- readiness, morale, trust, effectiveness, etc. Those in Marine combat arms had a particularly dim view of gays and lesbians in the military. Close to 60 percent said that it would negatively or very negatively affect the ability of the unit to get the job done. The report notes that "Question 68c asked Service members about the impact of repeal on the trust between unit members—a part of social cohesion. Overall, 33% of Service members predicted a negative impact on trust between unit members; this number was 47% for the Marine Corps, 49% for Army combat arms, and 60% for Marine combat arms."
I suppose in a venue such as Open Salon, the negative perception of gays and lesbians expressed in the report would be dismissed as the ravings of a bunch of right-wing wackos and fundies who happen to be in the military. The problem is that a lot of these wackos and fundies are the same ones fighting and dying and being called upon to serve in multiple deployments in combat situations.
We can dismiss or ridicule their concerns, but in the event that a significant number of them decided that they no longer wanted to be in the military -- in the middle of two simultaneous wars -- we'd have a hell of a problem.
http://open.salon.com/blog/sgt_mom/2010/12/19/requiem_for_dadt#post_comments
Nice to see you commenting here.
I understand your concerns. I had a conversation with one of my conservative, ex-cop coworkers a few months back when I first started working my current job. He and I actually enjoy a friendly sort of Progressive versus Conservative banter. When he knew for certain that I was a Progressive, he expressed that he was glad of that because the man whose position I was taking over had been a “flaming, bleeding-heart Liberal” far more radical than I, but he was looking forward to having someone he could argue with on the job. We touched on a number of topics and he brought up DADT. He professed no concerns about homosexuality, but did think there might be some negative effects in the military if people were openly gay. It’s not difficult to see that point of view. There are a couple of failures of that point of view, though.
First, it’s not based experience or fact; it’s based in pure speculation. Second, given the military’s experience with desegregation that started in the 40’s, one might say that history does not support this perspective. I recognize that the gay/lesbian issue is not exactly comparable, but the arguments against it are all the same that were used in that issue, too.
It’s all speculation at this point. Also, I might suggest that the numbers from those polls may not be as indicative of reality as they could be made to appear. My own view is that under this policy change, there may be more gays who will enlist, but not necessarily a huge increase in those who would do so “openly”. I say this for the reasons you cite, which would indicate that a gay/lesbian service member still might be better off not openly expressing their sexuality, but at the same time, should they be discovered in some manner, they will have more protections against unfair treatment, which might entice them to join.
At any rate, my post here isn’t really about that. It’s about the kind of illogical thinking that permeates the Right, and how that damages this country. The Right always screams about political activism and misuse of government to institute social policy, UNTIL if benefits their beliefs. Illogical, hypocritical, and very often simply incapable of having a decent, intelligent debate. I’ve been listening to these radio shows recently and there is one consistent trend; when a caller calls in and disagrees with the show’s host, the host resorts to ad hominem attacks and cancels the call and moves on to the next call. I also encounter this regularly with some of my face-to-face arguments with the conservatives with whom I work. I don’t think conservatives have a monopoly on this, but I do find that it runs much deeper among them.
B-Fett,
I’ll comment later; gotta go to work …
Since I essentially equate the hatred of gays in our cutlure with christianity exploited by the Right, I associate this hatred with the Right. It certainly is not as prevalent among Left-wingers as it is among Right-wingers in general. I will steal one of my favorite quotes from John Stuart Mill and adapt it here: While it is not true that all Right-wingers are homosexual haters, it IS true that most homosexual haters are Right-wingers.
You write, “…when properly read there is no prohibition against homosexuality in the bible.”
Heh, I’m always amused by the idea that ANYBODY knows THE “proper” reading of what is purported to be the infallible word of God. I’m not saying that I disagree with you. I just don’t think anything found in the bible is worthy of the respect it currently receives. Nobody truly knows what that book says much, or most, of the time; there are so many different interpretations. What a joke!
Your assertion that there are no quotations from the New Testament that are used against homosexuality is flawed. Again, don’t take this as if I agree with the anti-homosexual tilt often given to these verses, but these are used for that purpose and they are in the New Testament:
Romans 1:26-27:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
The text reads (in the King James Version):
Romans 1:26-27: ”For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."
This passage is unique in that it is the only place in the Bible that refers to same-gender sexual behavior by women. Bennett Sims, the former Episcopal bishop of Atlanta, believes that these verses have done more to form Christians' negative opinion of homosexuality than any other single passage in the Bible. He writes: "For most of us who seriously honor Scripture these verses still stand as the capital New Testament text that unequivocally prohibits homosexual behavior. More prohibitively, this text has been taken to mean that even a same-sex inclination is reprehensible, so that a type of humanity known as 'homosexual' has steadily become the object of contempt and discrimination."
-----------------------------------------------------
I Corinthians 6:9:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
The passage: In his first epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul lists many activities that he believes will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God (heaven). Robertson's Word Studies refers to this passage as: "a solemn roll call of the damned even if some of their names are on the church roll in Corinth whether officers or ordinary members."
Unfortunately, the Greek original from which many English language Bibles have been translated, is ambiguous about two of the groups who are condemned.
The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours)
This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed. Unfortunately, many of the translations do not differentiate between:
• Persons who are sexually attracted to others of the same-sex, but who are celibate and do not act on their desire, and
• Persons who are are sexually active and who act on their sexual attraction to others of the same sex. (See Web site for more info)
-----------------------------------------------------
Text of 1 Timothy 1:9-10:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc7.htm
The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."
The emphasized term translates the Greek word "arsenokoitai."
The ambiguous term "arsenokoitai:"
The original Greek word "arsenokoitai" was apparently created by Paul when he wrote 1 Corinthians about 55 CE.
No record remains of any writer using the term before that time. The word is often translated in English versions of the Bible as "homosexual." That is, a men or women [sic] who is sexually attracted only to persons of the same sex. Some theologians are fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey, since the idea of a homosexual sexual orientation only surfaced in the 19th century after the start of the scientific study of human sexuality. Also, "arsen" in Greek means "man." Thus, it is most unlikely that "arsenokoitai" could refer to both male gays and lesbians.
Various commentators have suggested that "arsenokoitai" means masturbators, pimps, prostitutes, boy sex slaves, male prostitutes, or abusive pedophiles.
(See Web site for more info)
-----------------------------------------------------
Jude 1:7:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc2.htm#jud
The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 7 as:
Jude 1:7: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Emphasis ours)
The book of Jude is quite short and only has a single chapter.
The phrase translated as "strange flesh" in the original Greek reads: "sarkos heteras." Ironically, our English word "heterosexual" is derived from "heteras." "Strange flesh" has been variously translated in other versions as "perverted sensuality," "unnatural lust," "unnatural sex," "lust of men for other men," "pursued unnatural desire," "sexual sin, even perversion," and (in the NIV) "perversion."
(See Web site for more info)
-----------------------------------------------------
Based on your comment, I’m assuming that you would throw out everything in the bible except for the specific passages attributed to Jesus as quotes of what he said. Since the religion known as “Christianity” was founded by others who are quoted above, I assume, too, that you would logically deny any value for that religion.
Thanks for reading and commenting. You have expressed something that I have actually thought, but never actually put into words; “Some of their attitudes and beliefs actually logically lead to liberal viewpoints, but they ignore those and focus only on the arguments that favor their ‘side’.
This demonstrates that they just do not “connect the dots,” as is often said. They do seem extraordinarily incapable of following things through to a logical conclusion. One of the ways this becomes clear is in an actual face-to-face conversation. I have experienced this when my conservative debate opponent argues one thing at one point in the discussion, and then later argues the opposite, and even when I point out that’s what he’s doing, he still can’t see it; truly amazing; I don’t know if “cognitive dissonance” could be better demonstrated.
One thing, though, that I think is also sometimes in play, but that maybe sometimes we don’t want to admit, is that sometimes they simply don’t WANT to follow through logically.