Tonight my wife and I were privileged to get to see the premier of the Ahmanson Theatre's production of August: Osage County. We were front row in the mezzanine and had good company with our friends sitting next to us. It was a joy to get to go back into theatre world for a moment, I'm not there enough anymore.
The play was originally produced at the Steppenwolf Theatre in Chicago, was directed by a Northwestern staff member, Ana Shapiro. She eventually won the Tony for best director and stands with fellow Northwestern staff member Mary Zimmerman as the only two American women to ever win that award. Go Cats!
The show itself is bleak, it's well produced, it's clever, and filled with moments of brilliant truth. It's long, but is never dull or slow. It showcases female actors like few shows do.
What interests me most about this show was that the thematic premise is that dysfunction breeds dysfunction. This even jives with my Jesus-freak view of humanity - which is that God created the creatures and plants each bearing fruit according to its kind (Genesis). Even regarding dysfunction, God promises several times that the repercussions of the sins of parents will be passed to their offspring even up to the third and fourth generation. (Ex, Dt, Num) The Christian New Testament (in the book of John specifically) extends this concept with the metaphor of light and dark - dark gives way to dark, but light overcomes the dark and is then propagatable to future generations.
The play's setup of dysfunction breeding dysfunction also jives with my understanding and experience with co-dependent families. In families where one member has an addiction, the other members of the family have a dependency upon that person's dependency. Particularly, people often define their identities in relationship to that person's dysfunction, even into their adult lives. So, when they grow up, they are often unconsciously stuck in a pattern that seeks to recreate what is familiar to them in terms of a family system. So, in a sense, the son of an alcoholic not only has a tendency to marry an alcoholic, but often times has a propensity to create an alcoholic - sometimes fictionally in his mind, and sometimes he simply drives his spouse to drink. Fictional or non, the martyr identity can be comfortably fed all through life. Osage County nailed this concept. It was incredibly woven into the story.
However, my view of humanity diverges from Osage County's view. Where Osage ends in hyper-despair, I believe that there is a higher power who wishes to and is ready to intervene when invited. I wholeheartedly believe that those who choose to part from the "sins" (I don't mean to make this a theological point, but really one of breaking the patterns found in dysfunctional family systems) of their parents, according to their kind, will instill blessing upon their offspring even up to a thousand generations. (Ex, Dt) This doesn't mean it's an easy thing to overcome or fix, but I do believe it possible. Even AA's starting point is with a (nebulously defined) higher power.
After watching Osage, it's clear that this family is not able to do that. All the siblings resort to the same dysfunction (all the daughters marry/date cheaters, none can hold their world together to any semblance of hopeful relating), and despair is the final word. This is evidenced in all three of the present generations and referred to in the fourth generation, the matriarch's mom and her resultant dysfunctional childhood primes the pump for her parenting style.
It's one thing to maintain that this is just a story about this family's inability, but the framing of it within a meta-story suggests that the author may well believe that their dysfunction is a natural outcome of America's dysfunction. This is, then, not just about a single family, but it is suggested to be the story of all American families.
Here's the meta-story to Osage County as I saw it: America's founding is at the expense of the Native American genocide. In the play's story, the only calming force of reason and stability in the household is the Native American housekeeper. Her room is above all the others. She reads in a fixed tableau on her bed while the family fights. She takes and keeps the job (in spite of the extreme dysfunction of it all) simply because she needs work. She needs work, of course, because her tribe was displaced by the Native American genocide generations prior (keep in mind, generations are a theme - her assumed story parallels the overt narrative in the play). She, in a sense, survives economically off of the inherent dysfunction endemic to the American system (they wouldn't need her if they weren't so messed up). She is a product of the American dysfunction in a sense and even more, she now must be subject to it. And finally, it's her stable spiritual paradigm which nurses the dying soul of the family's matriarch's dysfunction into the plays' final lights out in the end.
This leaves me with another problem, and it's a problem that I sense is ingrained in the world of so many socially minded artists. From my time in the theatre, I am familiar with the world view that there is nothing redeemable in suburbia, and anything which maintains a whitewashed exterior of happy function must only be a pretense for inner dysfunction. A part of their worldview is often that stories are told more true when the f-word is dropped at least once a minute (if not eight), and alcohol and cigarettes are consumed ad nauseum.
(This play was more than 210 minutes, and I can only imagine the f-word made an appearance at least 300 times.)
It's not that many people don't talk like that, or drink like that, or smoke like that, but what bothers me is the assumption that there aren't people out there who don't. Now, no family is perfect, without a doubt, I certainly have no desire to suggest such simplistic utopianism. (And let's face it, it would be incredibly dull to produce a play about a healthy family!) But as my wife watched the first act she literally didn't understand why people were laughing. She said, "if I were watching this by myself, I would have had no idea that there was meant to be a joke there." My wife, you see, comes from a shockingly healthy family. Yes, yes, they have had many challenges in life, and it's not always been easy. They didn't grow up with money, and had and have lots of ongoing practical life difficulties. But what sets them apart into a category of health is that they're entirely committed to relating well to one another, and to dealing as a family with the difficult things that arise. They Skype every Saturday, and grandma cries because she wants to reach out and touch her grandson but can't. They fly out three times a year, clean our apartment from top to bottom, take us to meals, encourage us, pray for us, babysit for us so we can go on a date, and more. I can't recall a time when I've seen her family drink or smoke anything, and yet they have never uttered a word in judgment about either activity. I knew she was from a healthy family the day (when we were dating when) her dad sat me down and gave me expectations as to my intentions for his daughter - and they were words coming from a man whom I could tell had the experience to back them up. So to the cynical writer and worldview I simply know another reality is out there - one with hope for health - even if it's not apparent to you. Basically, the play didn't resonate with my wife, at all. It was foreign.
(Now, hopefully, I won't drive my wife to be a workaholic and then my son can grow up also not resonating with a bleak view of humanity...)
While my wife may not have, I did, though, related to August: Osage County, like much of the audience. I found moments of truth in the dysfunction, even if not by universal mandate.
I fear that all I've said will suggest some sort of sense that I disliked the production. Quite the opposite - it's just that plays about worldview enrapture me to think - and write - about worldview...especially when I disagree on some level. I'm happy to report that I stood with the crowd at the end, agreeing that a standing ovation was absolutely in order. The production, the performances, and the incredibly insightful moments of truth made this play not only worthwhile, but thought provoking and challenging in a healthy way. I'd love to hear more of what others take and are challenged by from it - but for me and my household, there was just one thing missing - a glimmer of hope from the God who longs for us not to continue in what is but trust in what is possible.
Battlestar Galactica Timeline
I'm well aware that I'm behind pop culture here by about 4 months. But my wife just bought me for Father's Day the last few episodes of Battlestar Galtactica (BSG hereafter). We had scrounged and found them here and there, but finally in her infinite benevolence bought them on iTunes. We don't get the sci-fi channel over the bunny ears, so we've always had to watch them via creative means.
So we watched the episode entitled "No Exit" which I believe is 5th from the end. It answered a ridiculous number of questions but made our heads spin. We had to pause about 8 times to process what was going on. So I wanted to try to piece everything together in a master time line. This is broad, not specific, I'm not getting details here, I'm getting big picture.
If you're a fanatic there's nothing new here - you know this stuff. I wouldn't mind comment/clarifications though from you people. If you're confused...walk through it with me:
I have to admit, I was skeptical when Adama saw the hybrid but had already known Saul - who was a full on human-appearing Cylon model. But the above timeline works out that kink.
I'm v-v-v-very excited to see where this series will end up. I'll have to do some theology blogging on it later. The "No Exit" episode is pretty a pretty interesting ressurection of theological concepts because the 5 created the 8 models to be monotheists - John accusing Ellen of making it out of fiction - Ellen though defeneds as it having an otological basis.
There was also something about if they believed in a one-true-God paradigm, they'd be led to have compassion and therefore not fight - but I didn't quite fill in the details of how that worked in the storyline...and seems to be proving itself false within the confines of the story.
I sense that they're moving toward a syncretistic resolution - symbolized implicitly by Adama spreading the Cylon based organic steel resin over the structure of the Galactica in order to sustain itself. And overtly by the comment that humans living with just humans and Cylons living with just Cylons didn't work out - they have to mix. And in the end, it'll probably sound a lot like Simon and Garfunkel's simplistic "strangest dream I'd ever had before. I dreamed the world had all agreed to put an end to war" mixed with John Lennon's "Imagine there's no heaven...nothing to kill or die for...living life in peace."
Of course in that place we'd just be left with yet another attempted and faulty human construct of peace. It's faulty because in order to make it work you'd have to kill all the people opposed to syncretism. That's the the Romans tried to do with the Jews and Christians.
So we watched the episode entitled "No Exit" which I believe is 5th from the end. It answered a ridiculous number of questions but made our heads spin. We had to pause about 8 times to process what was going on. So I wanted to try to piece everything together in a master time line. This is broad, not specific, I'm not getting details here, I'm getting big picture.
If you're a fanatic there's nothing new here - you know this stuff. I wouldn't mind comment/clarifications though from you people. If you're confused...walk through it with me:
- The human beings on Earth, aka the 13th tribe, created artificial intelligence and they looked like humans. Specifically, they looked like Saul, Chief, Ellen, Tory, and Anders. I believe these 5 "models" had the ability to reproduce.
- There was a holocaust where all creatures on Earth were destroyed because of the conflict between the humans and their enslaved artificially intelligent beings.
- They had, however, the resurrection concept in place, so the 5 resurrected in space.
- Knowing that humans everywhere were (or would?) be trying to create AI, they rushed off to the other 12 tribes to try to stop them, to warn them. But it was too late - they had not only already created them, but they were at war with them. (Note: It was "too late" because they didn't have FTL jump capabilities faster than the speed of light, so travelling near the speed of light, much time passed for the humans at their destination and little time passed for the 5 "skin jobs")
- This second group of humans' AI creation looked more like robots - the "toaster" models.
- This gave way to first Cylon war. This is the subject of the 1978 TV series, and the oft referred to setup to the recent series which ended in March.
- In the first Cylon war, the toasters were working to try to create an AI that looked like a human with the obvious benefit that they would be more effective in combat and espionage. They had only gotten so far as the "hybrid", who was first seen in the Bill Adama webisode/flashback (season 3?) to the first Cylon war.
- The 5, motivated entirely by the drive for world peace (er...sorry...universal peace) convinced the toasters to sign the armistice stopping the first Cylon war. This was in exchange for the skin job technology - or was it the resurrection technology? Maybe I'm not clear there. One of the two though were negotiated.
- The 5 then "created" the 8 models we first became familiar with at the top of the recently ended series. That's Boomer, Six, Leoben, Deanna, "John" Cavil (sp?), and the two other skin jobs that barely ever show up probably for SAG contractual reasons - and line of 7's that was killed and is only referred to as "Daniel" through the episodes I've seen (I'm guessing you could spoil something there for me - so don't!).
- The John Cavil dude killed the 5 so they'd ressurect, but jacked with their ressurection sequences so they had no memories of being Cylons and planted them among the human race. So the 5 as we meet them are entirely unaware of their Cylon-ness.
- The 7 or 8 skin jobs then break the terms of the armistice - and that's the start of the miniseries that leads into the TV series a few years back.
- On the Algae planet (post New Caprica), Tyrol finds the temple in which Deanna eventually catches a glimpse of the "Final 5" Cylons.
- The Cylons vote to "box" the Deanna line because she shouldn't know things like that (I'm a bit shaky here - why don't she and all the 7 skin job lines know who the Final 5 are? At least John Cavil does, right?).
- But later the Cylons split on a vote to unbox Deanna (or is it over altering the centurions?), a Cylon Civil War ensues, with a few models (6's, some 8's, and ??) actually becoming allies with BSG and the human fleet.
I have to admit, I was skeptical when Adama saw the hybrid but had already known Saul - who was a full on human-appearing Cylon model. But the above timeline works out that kink.
I'm v-v-v-very excited to see where this series will end up. I'll have to do some theology blogging on it later. The "No Exit" episode is pretty a pretty interesting ressurection of theological concepts because the 5 created the 8 models to be monotheists - John accusing Ellen of making it out of fiction - Ellen though defeneds as it having an otological basis.
There was also something about if they believed in a one-true-God paradigm, they'd be led to have compassion and therefore not fight - but I didn't quite fill in the details of how that worked in the storyline...and seems to be proving itself false within the confines of the story.
I sense that they're moving toward a syncretistic resolution - symbolized implicitly by Adama spreading the Cylon based organic steel resin over the structure of the Galactica in order to sustain itself. And overtly by the comment that humans living with just humans and Cylons living with just Cylons didn't work out - they have to mix. And in the end, it'll probably sound a lot like Simon and Garfunkel's simplistic "strangest dream I'd ever had before. I dreamed the world had all agreed to put an end to war" mixed with John Lennon's "Imagine there's no heaven...nothing to kill or die for...living life in peace."
Of course in that place we'd just be left with yet another attempted and faulty human construct of peace. It's faulty because in order to make it work you'd have to kill all the people opposed to syncretism. That's the the Romans tried to do with the Jews and Christians.
Palm Pre versus iPhone
My friend picked up the Palm Pre on Saturday and showed it to me. I admit that I felt a twinge of jealousy. I had been a Palm guy for 2 years and really loved the Treo 650 in its early days, but discouraged and alarmed that Palm seemed to not care about keeping up with the new technology I made the leap over to the iPhone after my Treo reached it's deathbed.
I don't have a Pre and I can't review it, so these are more questions for Pre users - but the first thing I checked when I got to hold my friend's (and oooh it feels nice and small in the hand even with full pull out keyboard!) was the Calendar. Palm's strength was always in productivity, particularly in the calendar and contacts.
On the iPhone I disdain the Calendar application for a couple very simple reasons that could be a minor, minor fix for their developers. In order to add a calendar event, at a bare minimum on the iPhone I have to, on the calendar app, click "+" (meaning "new event"), select the title input box for the event, input the title, press "save", then select the time with a click and a second drag to get to the right time of day, then click "save". On the Palm - and it holds true on the Pre, it's a 1 click then type the name of the event - so simple! On your calendar you simply touch the time slot where your event will go, and you can edit the title. 6 clicks versus 1 is not trivial - I make a choice often to simply not add a calendar event and "just remember it" with my brain instead. I never did that with my Treo, and I wouldn't with a Pre.
A second iPhone quirk that stinks is that if you add a contact, go through the work of putting in the info, and push the iPhone's actual physical button to go back to your main menu - it doesn't save the contact. You have to press the on-screen button that says "save". I promise, promise, promise that I would not have input this contact if I didn't want to save it. JUST SAVE IT. Always save it. Palm always did that with contacts and events and stuff. Palm's works like a database - you make a change and it's saved. Done. iPhone's works like clunky software - don't hit "done" on that event or that contact and it's gone. Pre users - what happens if you exit the application without "saving" or indicating being done with an event or contact? Let me know...
Another Palm strength was seamless integration between contacts and calendar, particularly pertaining to birthdays. If I put in a birthday on the Treo, it showed up on my calendar. Pre users - does this still work? If I know Palm I bet it does.
One iPhone plus (not sure if the Pre does this) is that for calendar events you can have multiple reminders. Great idea. I definitely like having a 2 day warning on something but not to the exclusion of the half hour warning. However, they could still improve this - eliminating clicks is what I'm all about - by allowing you on the "alert" screen to select multiple times. Instead you select a time (1 click), then you have to go back (2), click the second reminder slot (3) and then select a time again (4) then click save (5). Why can't you just click two times on that first alert screen, and automatically take you back to the event's page without clicking save? You think those Apple design guys would be on top of those little things. And why not be able to do a customizable alert time? (You can only select their pre-determined increments including 5, 15, 30 mins, 1 or 2 hours, 1 day, 2 day, and day of. There is no ability to do 90 minutes)
Can anyone answer me as to whether the Pre has added multiple alerts? The Treo did not have that.
OK OK OK but the iPhone's still pretty stinking cool. It's app store is tremendous - we'll have to see how development comes along for the Pre.
But maybe in about a year I'll consider a switch back to Palm? We'll see. The new phone always gets the hype. In about 6 months people will probably be cursing Palm and I'll be happy to have my iPhone. I suppose it's just a moment of jealousy that inspired this writing.
I don't have a Pre and I can't review it, so these are more questions for Pre users - but the first thing I checked when I got to hold my friend's (and oooh it feels nice and small in the hand even with full pull out keyboard!) was the Calendar. Palm's strength was always in productivity, particularly in the calendar and contacts.
On the iPhone I disdain the Calendar application for a couple very simple reasons that could be a minor, minor fix for their developers. In order to add a calendar event, at a bare minimum on the iPhone I have to, on the calendar app, click "+" (meaning "new event"), select the title input box for the event, input the title, press "save", then select the time with a click and a second drag to get to the right time of day, then click "save". On the Palm - and it holds true on the Pre, it's a 1 click then type the name of the event - so simple! On your calendar you simply touch the time slot where your event will go, and you can edit the title. 6 clicks versus 1 is not trivial - I make a choice often to simply not add a calendar event and "just remember it" with my brain instead. I never did that with my Treo, and I wouldn't with a Pre.
A second iPhone quirk that stinks is that if you add a contact, go through the work of putting in the info, and push the iPhone's actual physical button to go back to your main menu - it doesn't save the contact. You have to press the on-screen button that says "save". I promise, promise, promise that I would not have input this contact if I didn't want to save it. JUST SAVE IT. Always save it. Palm always did that with contacts and events and stuff. Palm's works like a database - you make a change and it's saved. Done. iPhone's works like clunky software - don't hit "done" on that event or that contact and it's gone. Pre users - what happens if you exit the application without "saving" or indicating being done with an event or contact? Let me know...
Another Palm strength was seamless integration between contacts and calendar, particularly pertaining to birthdays. If I put in a birthday on the Treo, it showed up on my calendar. Pre users - does this still work? If I know Palm I bet it does.
One iPhone plus (not sure if the Pre does this) is that for calendar events you can have multiple reminders. Great idea. I definitely like having a 2 day warning on something but not to the exclusion of the half hour warning. However, they could still improve this - eliminating clicks is what I'm all about - by allowing you on the "alert" screen to select multiple times. Instead you select a time (1 click), then you have to go back (2), click the second reminder slot (3) and then select a time again (4) then click save (5). Why can't you just click two times on that first alert screen, and automatically take you back to the event's page without clicking save? You think those Apple design guys would be on top of those little things. And why not be able to do a customizable alert time? (You can only select their pre-determined increments including 5, 15, 30 mins, 1 or 2 hours, 1 day, 2 day, and day of. There is no ability to do 90 minutes)
Can anyone answer me as to whether the Pre has added multiple alerts? The Treo did not have that.
OK OK OK but the iPhone's still pretty stinking cool. It's app store is tremendous - we'll have to see how development comes along for the Pre.
But maybe in about a year I'll consider a switch back to Palm? We'll see. The new phone always gets the hype. In about 6 months people will probably be cursing Palm and I'll be happy to have my iPhone. I suppose it's just a moment of jealousy that inspired this writing.
Sotomayor
I firmly believe that the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is one of the most significant and profoundly impactful processes in American government. Sonia Sotomayor is and should be subject to fitting and appropriate scrutiny, and should be spared the inanity of political grandstanding, posturing, and threats of Republican filibuster.
The left attempted to (and successfully in several cases) filibuster and block federal judicial nominations over the previous 8 years during Bush the younger's presidency. I objected to that then, and I object to this ridiculous discussion now. It is befuddlingly equivalent to the silliness of the attempted/proposed Alito filibuster (that our current president reportedly supported). But since I don't believe in karma or payback, I don't feel the need to stick out my tongue and say "what goes around comes around" like a 10 year old, but would hope that we can just think clearly about this for a moment.
Those who will vote on her appointment approval should focus on her record of decisions, in court, not her private speeches about race and gender. We need not concern ourselves with the fact that she hopes that Latina judges could in theory make a better judge, but rather we need to concern ourselves with the singular question of whether she is a good judge, which is demonstrated both by her track record and her testimony before congress.
I disdain political games from both sides, and I'm ashamed of our country when we grill Clarence Thomas about pubic hairs because he's a conservative black man being nominated to the Supreme Court or Sonia Sotomayor because she's an intelligent Latina judge appointed by a leftist president. (And by the way are we ignoring that her original appointment was by Bush the elder?)
Whether she's Supreme Court material I have neither the experience nor expertise to judge, but I definitely feel that the conversation's focus is drastically misguided. If we keep going down this road, the next thing we know we'll be interviewing her ex-boyfriends to find out who knows what.
Anita Hill, anyone? No. No. No.
Judge the judge based on her judgments.
The left attempted to (and successfully in several cases) filibuster and block federal judicial nominations over the previous 8 years during Bush the younger's presidency. I objected to that then, and I object to this ridiculous discussion now. It is befuddlingly equivalent to the silliness of the attempted/proposed Alito filibuster (that our current president reportedly supported). But since I don't believe in karma or payback, I don't feel the need to stick out my tongue and say "what goes around comes around" like a 10 year old, but would hope that we can just think clearly about this for a moment.
Those who will vote on her appointment approval should focus on her record of decisions, in court, not her private speeches about race and gender. We need not concern ourselves with the fact that she hopes that Latina judges could in theory make a better judge, but rather we need to concern ourselves with the singular question of whether she is a good judge, which is demonstrated both by her track record and her testimony before congress.
I disdain political games from both sides, and I'm ashamed of our country when we grill Clarence Thomas about pubic hairs because he's a conservative black man being nominated to the Supreme Court or Sonia Sotomayor because she's an intelligent Latina judge appointed by a leftist president. (And by the way are we ignoring that her original appointment was by Bush the elder?)
Whether she's Supreme Court material I have neither the experience nor expertise to judge, but I definitely feel that the conversation's focus is drastically misguided. If we keep going down this road, the next thing we know we'll be interviewing her ex-boyfriends to find out who knows what.
Anita Hill, anyone? No. No. No.
Judge the judge based on her judgments.
Toshiba DVD Recorder (DR410)
I just bought this Toshiba DR410 DVD recorder stand alone component a couple weeks ago and I'm ready to review it. I was looking for a DVD Recorder that I could use to easily transfer my old VHS taps to digital, then dump both the VHS tapes and VCR forever. This definitely accomplished my purposes, though with some underwhelming results.
First, it's easy to run, setup, and play with. I bought an HDMI cable so I could do 1080i upscaling of my regular DVDs (I have no Blue Ray player and no plans to get one at this point - and my TV only goes to 1080i, but this DVD player/recorder does go up to 1080p if you've got a compatible TV) and it seems to work fine. The upscaling is really a minor thing but regular DVD players on 1080(i/p) TVs render the picture a little funny with some strange lines and pixelation, and the 1080 upscaling seems to take care of that. It does not by any means make it as nice as a Blue Ray player.
The plusses are that it's easy and straightforward. A normal person can use this and it shouldn't be excessively intimidating. It's slim, light, though seems a little wider than it probably needs to be...but I basically recommend it.
However, I must focus on the negative, because sadly that's how I'm programmed...and it may help you decide to go a different route.
First, it's easy to run, setup, and play with. I bought an HDMI cable so I could do 1080i upscaling of my regular DVDs (I have no Blue Ray player and no plans to get one at this point - and my TV only goes to 1080i, but this DVD player/recorder does go up to 1080p if you've got a compatible TV) and it seems to work fine. The upscaling is really a minor thing but regular DVD players on 1080(i/p) TVs render the picture a little funny with some strange lines and pixelation, and the 1080 upscaling seems to take care of that. It does not by any means make it as nice as a Blue Ray player.
The plusses are that it's easy and straightforward. A normal person can use this and it shouldn't be excessively intimidating. It's slim, light, though seems a little wider than it probably needs to be...but I basically recommend it.
However, I must focus on the negative, because sadly that's how I'm programmed...and it may help you decide to go a different route.
- The manual 't indicate any remote codes to enable me to use my TV remote on the component...so I have to add one more remote to the pile 'o remotes that I have. An hour of googling didn't seem to find a solution either.
- The setup menus are laughably designed - they look like a commodore 64 quality of appearance. However, they work fine, and they're functional.
- It's fairly tedious putting in names for the titles, they probably could've done it smarter. But thankfully you can put in names for the titles. You cannot, however, put in names for the individual chapters.
- The menu that's built when you look at it in another player looks just as Commodore 64'ish. Why not put a few fun templates in there - you know like a "classy" look, a "baby" look, a "sports" themed menu, etc., if not a way to actually build your own? No.
Kill All People with Blonde Hair?
OK so tomorrow's a big day in California. The CA supreme court is ruling whether to overturn proposition 8, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. It was voted by a slim majority of Californians as an amendment to the state constitution - the logic being if it's part of the constitution it can't be declared "unconstitutional".
Tomorrow's going to come with an intense reaction no matter what.
If the court upholds prop 8, expect an outcry from the gay community. If the court overturns prop 8, expect an emotional response from the pro-prop-8'ers.
Now there is a 3rd response, and I fall in this category - where I'm wondering about the implications (aside from simply yea or nay for 8) where a court overturns the majority of the voters. Are we not teetering on the cliff of democracy?
One case where that was true, and good, though race and sexuality are not analogous situations but is worth looking at anyway, is where Brown v the Board of Education overturned the will of the voters to desegregate schools. The will of the people was segregation. The courts recognized that the will of the people was actually contrary to the ideals for which our country stands.
Let's put it to hyperbole. Let's imagine that by public referendum the voters of a particular state voted to kill all the people with blond hair. In this hyperbolous case I would be ecstatic that the courts overturned the will of the people, and I, for the record, have brown hair, and am glad that Brown beat the Board of Education or however that ruling went - I'm glad. Anyone out there want to re-segregate the schools? I didn't think so...
But what of the gay marriage debate? Is this a blond hair situation?
I've reached a point with this hubbub that I frankly admit that while I carry a conservative theological position regarding homosexuality ... that God's going to sort it all out in the end - regardless of what my position is. Secondarily, my marriage will not be affected by whether I have gay neighbors or married gay neighbors.
Furthermore, I have the theological wondering to ask the question ... why ... if God let's people choose sin, why do we take it upon ourselves to try to stop people from choosing sin? I know, I know, I just said the word "sin" in the same breath as talking about homosexuality - for that I'm a bigot (so I hear). But bear with me here. I as a pastor will stand before you and tell you what sin is, and as much as you seek my counsel I'll always discourage you from sin. Always. Even here. (The key is though...are you asking for my counsel?) But let's get back to the question - if GOD let's people sin - and the will of a certain percentage of our population is that they want to act contrary to what I interpret the Bible to say on the matter - why do I think I'm wise or powerful or wonderful enough to outright stop people from sinning.
Honest pastor moment: Hey, look, stop sinning. Seriously. Sin sucks, it eats you away. It traps you, and whisks you away from growing in your relationship with God.
Honest theologically minded voting question: If God gives people free will, why can't we let people exercise their free will?
One answer, and is certainly a good answer, is that it's the role of the government to protect people's rights, so if a "sin" infringes on someone else's rights (murder and stealing are great examples). The question then begs to be asked...who in this case is the victim?
Assuming the conservative Biblical position with homosexuality already paints me as a hater. Frankly, that doesn't bother me half as much as the thought of having the wrong Biblical position. But THAT doesn't bother me half as much as the thought of over valuing positions while under valuing people.
Regardless, I'm going to throw you a bone, all you who think I'm a hater. This is a victimless "sin". Well, theologically of course I might challenge that we're all the victims of our sin both individually and communally...but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying by a gay person marrying another gay person, I'm still able to live my life just the same as I would have if you weren't allowed to get married. I'm still going to invite you into relationship with Jesus and when you want to hear about sexual identity formation, I'll be ready to share that process with you and you, in your free will, can choose to go down that road or not go down that road.
BUT...the understandable response from someone who holds a conservative position regarding homosexuality is...there is a victim when kids get involved. I will only address this concern by saying that proposition 8 does not in any way allow or disallow adopting or raising children in its passage or overturning.
Laws protect us from someone else taking our rights away or where there is a needlessly suffering victim. A Christian could make a viable argument on this basis that we ought to pass laws against infidelity. A person who cheats on a spouse does actual and significant harm to a victim. A Christian who does that harms their community of faith and the body of Christ.
Frankly, if homosexuality is here to stay (am I really delusional enough to suggest otherwise? maybe...), could it possibly be better to enable monogamous commitment within homosexuality rather than enable promiscuity?
I'm all over the place here, but one last question - God, can you help me be a better husband?
Okay a couple more questions - Can you help me love people that I don't like? That I don't agree with? Can you help me love my wife better? My son better? My friends better? My neighbors better? Can you help ME to stop sinning? Can you help me be a better reflection of you?
These are the questions we need to be asking.
( What's that in my eye? Why yes, yes, that's a plank. )
Tomorrow's going to come with an intense reaction no matter what.
If the court upholds prop 8, expect an outcry from the gay community. If the court overturns prop 8, expect an emotional response from the pro-prop-8'ers.
Now there is a 3rd response, and I fall in this category - where I'm wondering about the implications (aside from simply yea or nay for 8) where a court overturns the majority of the voters. Are we not teetering on the cliff of democracy?
One case where that was true, and good, though race and sexuality are not analogous situations but is worth looking at anyway, is where Brown v the Board of Education overturned the will of the voters to desegregate schools. The will of the people was segregation. The courts recognized that the will of the people was actually contrary to the ideals for which our country stands.
Let's put it to hyperbole. Let's imagine that by public referendum the voters of a particular state voted to kill all the people with blond hair. In this hyperbolous case I would be ecstatic that the courts overturned the will of the people, and I, for the record, have brown hair, and am glad that Brown beat the Board of Education or however that ruling went - I'm glad. Anyone out there want to re-segregate the schools? I didn't think so...
But what of the gay marriage debate? Is this a blond hair situation?
I've reached a point with this hubbub that I frankly admit that while I carry a conservative theological position regarding homosexuality ... that God's going to sort it all out in the end - regardless of what my position is. Secondarily, my marriage will not be affected by whether I have gay neighbors or married gay neighbors.
Furthermore, I have the theological wondering to ask the question ... why ... if God let's people choose sin, why do we take it upon ourselves to try to stop people from choosing sin? I know, I know, I just said the word "sin" in the same breath as talking about homosexuality - for that I'm a bigot (so I hear). But bear with me here. I as a pastor will stand before you and tell you what sin is, and as much as you seek my counsel I'll always discourage you from sin. Always. Even here. (The key is though...are you asking for my counsel?) But let's get back to the question - if GOD let's people sin - and the will of a certain percentage of our population is that they want to act contrary to what I interpret the Bible to say on the matter - why do I think I'm wise or powerful or wonderful enough to outright stop people from sinning.
Honest pastor moment: Hey, look, stop sinning. Seriously. Sin sucks, it eats you away. It traps you, and whisks you away from growing in your relationship with God.
Honest theologically minded voting question: If God gives people free will, why can't we let people exercise their free will?
One answer, and is certainly a good answer, is that it's the role of the government to protect people's rights, so if a "sin" infringes on someone else's rights (murder and stealing are great examples). The question then begs to be asked...who in this case is the victim?
Assuming the conservative Biblical position with homosexuality already paints me as a hater. Frankly, that doesn't bother me half as much as the thought of having the wrong Biblical position. But THAT doesn't bother me half as much as the thought of over valuing positions while under valuing people.
Regardless, I'm going to throw you a bone, all you who think I'm a hater. This is a victimless "sin". Well, theologically of course I might challenge that we're all the victims of our sin both individually and communally...but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying by a gay person marrying another gay person, I'm still able to live my life just the same as I would have if you weren't allowed to get married. I'm still going to invite you into relationship with Jesus and when you want to hear about sexual identity formation, I'll be ready to share that process with you and you, in your free will, can choose to go down that road or not go down that road.
BUT...the understandable response from someone who holds a conservative position regarding homosexuality is...there is a victim when kids get involved. I will only address this concern by saying that proposition 8 does not in any way allow or disallow adopting or raising children in its passage or overturning.
Laws protect us from someone else taking our rights away or where there is a needlessly suffering victim. A Christian could make a viable argument on this basis that we ought to pass laws against infidelity. A person who cheats on a spouse does actual and significant harm to a victim. A Christian who does that harms their community of faith and the body of Christ.
Frankly, if homosexuality is here to stay (am I really delusional enough to suggest otherwise? maybe...), could it possibly be better to enable monogamous commitment within homosexuality rather than enable promiscuity?
I'm all over the place here, but one last question - God, can you help me be a better husband?
Okay a couple more questions - Can you help me love people that I don't like? That I don't agree with? Can you help me love my wife better? My son better? My friends better? My neighbors better? Can you help ME to stop sinning? Can you help me be a better reflection of you?
These are the questions we need to be asking.
( What's that in my eye? Why yes, yes, that's a plank. )
Goodbye Guantanamo?
So there's some confusion about Guantanamo Bay's prison facility closing. It appeared to be a question of ethics for so long, particularly regarding two issues:
If I were in charge, and I believed that it was improper to withhold a fair trial, I would promptly initiate fair trial sequences for each detainee, with the result either being their unconditional release upon a not guilty verdict, or sentencing upon a guilty trial. For those who haven't enough case against them for prosecution their unconditional release would seem to be the most appropriate means. Perhaps dropping them off in the country in which they were picked up would be the appropriate gesture of goodwill.
If I were in charge, and I believed that the interrogation methods were torture and therefore unethical, I would immediately cease all interrogation methods behind closed doors and invite a UN, Red Cross, or some ultra left wing human rights organization with the most skeptical eye toward interrogation techniques to be present at each and every interrogation.
But the question being asked now is agnostic to the ethical issues. The question being asked is "If we close Guantanamo Bay, what do we do with them?" Really? WHERE is the question? I thought the question was whether these people are being treated fairly? Moving them to Kansas or France doesn't fix the problem. They've still been detained "unfairly" (if you believe that).
What's coming to light is that people spent 7 years livid at George W. Bush's policies so they raked him over the coals for imprisoning these people and using questionable interrogation techniques. Not more than a handful of people were privy to the matters which George W. Bush thought necessitated such a facility and technique. But now as President Obama sees the reality of it all from his new vantage point, he realizes he can't just let them run free. He can't cease interrogations, and he can't freely dissiminate information about the facility, the interrogation, and the inmates.
If two people who despise the policies of one another disagree until the successor comes along and then he suddenly agrees - there's more to the matter than what the public can see. But we all want to be critics. It's becoming clear to me that it's a sensitive matter of national security. It's beyond what I can validly criticize without being a witness to it myself.
The president has a difficult job. And every American thinks he can do the job better. Yes, it's our duty to keep accountability among our politicians, but we have to recognize that President Obama's in the job he's in because 99.9% of us would never want that job - and he said yes to it.
People love to criticize presidents. The left had a hey-day during the last 8 years, and the right's doing their best to return the favor - but let's get real and recognize that there's more to the job than we can see.
- Is it proper to detain an "enemy combatant" without a fair trial or even simply unstated probable cause?
- Are the interrogation methods utilized classifiable as torture or are they ethically sound?
If I were in charge, and I believed that it was improper to withhold a fair trial, I would promptly initiate fair trial sequences for each detainee, with the result either being their unconditional release upon a not guilty verdict, or sentencing upon a guilty trial. For those who haven't enough case against them for prosecution their unconditional release would seem to be the most appropriate means. Perhaps dropping them off in the country in which they were picked up would be the appropriate gesture of goodwill.
If I were in charge, and I believed that the interrogation methods were torture and therefore unethical, I would immediately cease all interrogation methods behind closed doors and invite a UN, Red Cross, or some ultra left wing human rights organization with the most skeptical eye toward interrogation techniques to be present at each and every interrogation.
But the question being asked now is agnostic to the ethical issues. The question being asked is "If we close Guantanamo Bay, what do we do with them?" Really? WHERE is the question? I thought the question was whether these people are being treated fairly? Moving them to Kansas or France doesn't fix the problem. They've still been detained "unfairly" (if you believe that).
What's coming to light is that people spent 7 years livid at George W. Bush's policies so they raked him over the coals for imprisoning these people and using questionable interrogation techniques. Not more than a handful of people were privy to the matters which George W. Bush thought necessitated such a facility and technique. But now as President Obama sees the reality of it all from his new vantage point, he realizes he can't just let them run free. He can't cease interrogations, and he can't freely dissiminate information about the facility, the interrogation, and the inmates.
If two people who despise the policies of one another disagree until the successor comes along and then he suddenly agrees - there's more to the matter than what the public can see. But we all want to be critics. It's becoming clear to me that it's a sensitive matter of national security. It's beyond what I can validly criticize without being a witness to it myself.
The president has a difficult job. And every American thinks he can do the job better. Yes, it's our duty to keep accountability among our politicians, but we have to recognize that President Obama's in the job he's in because 99.9% of us would never want that job - and he said yes to it.
People love to criticize presidents. The left had a hey-day during the last 8 years, and the right's doing their best to return the favor - but let's get real and recognize that there's more to the job than we can see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
