Dialogue

This is from an exchange with a close and trusted friend. My coming response to Part One of Casey's No Separation is Possible post will also keep this exchange in mind.

I'm in red and he's in blue. No symbolism.

Here's the issue -- Proposition 8.

Now because we're friends I'm almost sure that my wisdom and insight has influenced you enough so that you recognized the folly of the "pro" argument. But if you still think the Devil has corrupted my thinking I'd love to hear your argument.

As for Prop 8 - of course I am pro. Read Leviticus 18:22 and tell me G-d wants kids in that type of detestable home.

See that's wonderful. But maybe too good. Because I almost believe you can't be that ignorant. Almost.

You can of course believe in that single verse of Leviticus (while ignoring so many others because they're just too crazy to still believe) if you want to. You can take it literally. You can argue that G-d hates homosexuality (except for lesbianism). You still have to prove that the constitution should be based on a religious argument. I doubt you'll be able to convince me that our laws should also allow us to own Canadians and Mexicans as slaves because of Leviticus 25:44.

I say that we should ignore a lot of the bible tells us to do, and we should disagree with a lot of what the bible tells us is OK. I just flat out don't believe a whole lot of the Hebrew and Greek bible when it ventures a guess at what G-d condemns.

You could of course argue that government should enforce your religious view and impose it on everyone because of Lev 24:22. but at least admit then that you want to throw out the 1st amendment.

Imagine that there's a religion out there that sanctions and performs same-sex marriages. (It's evil of course, right? Must be Satanic?) Should the constitution be amended to revoke that religious right when the revocation is based on nothing more than another religious belief regarding Hebrew scripture? Even in the face of the American Psychological Association's view that the prejudices against same-sex parenting are unfounded? Are we simply supposed to trust bigots as long as they argue that G-d is also a bigot?

I say G-d isn't.

Can you come up with any evidence that prejudices against homosexuality are well-founded outside your scriptural reading?

The Bible is what it is. It is tilted toward man. If it says "man" it makes references to women as well, I am aware of the paradox this presents in Leviticus. But I am convinced the scenario of the garden of Eden is persistent and compelling in its message of marriage. I am also becoming more cognizant of androgynous births and unusual patterns of human development, but G-d can not be interested in the perpetuation of degenerate attractions that sin designed and the malignant mutations driven by poor human choice. By that I mean, when humans turn to incest, drugs, and self abuse, unnatural births follow.

Prop 8 to me simply restates basic Biblical principals and strives to protect the order of family as ordained by God. This belief is further solidified by the concept that Satan is working first and foremost to destroy the family as a functional unit of heavenly practice.

As for the loss of constitutional rights, I am convinced as far as eschatology goes, this is inevitable and should not be encouraged, but I am downright convinced that tolerance has its limits in light of risks.

The rights that same-sex couples want are only those that are granted by the state. they only want the government to protect the rights that come with a state recognized union/marriage. They don't care what any church thinks. They don't care what you preach. They don't care if you think they're the product or cause of sin. Teach your children to judge them. Or if you're an enlightened evangelist just teach your children to judge the sin while loving the sinner. That's fine.

But can you ask the government to deny that right without asking the government to rule based on your religious beliefs? Can you give an argument other than one that disregards the first amendment? Or are you willing to say that on this issue the government should not be bound by the constitution?

I cannot immediately come up with a non-religious arguement for Prop 8. I will consider it. However, I am not convinced I can remove my religion from any aspect of my life. Therein lies the controversy.

Before you sprain a brain muscle don't confuse G-d with your religion and don't confuse your life with the constitution.

What I'm getting at of course is that maybe you don't really value separation of church and state. If so then this disagreement is resolved and we have to move on to the next argument: why you should or shouldn't value some sort of separation.

Excellent point. I believe I have been giving lip service to the support of the separation of church and state, but I privately insist on the commandments in the courtrooms, the prayer of students and faculty in school and the instructions of creation or at least intelligent design. I like these, but believe it could mean we would be leaning toward Christianity, only to find Christianity leaning against me and my beliefs one day soon. So again, excellent point. Nice wake-up call. Let the state of California recognize these degenerates if they want, but I will still insist on pitying any innocent child subjected to that lifestyle.

The Gamut of Insights from A to B

From Political Wire

Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin

I have to hope that the undecided voters aren't waiting to see who's more likable or who's prettier. They're weighing issues and competence. And when PALIN/mccain are weighed and measured they lose the vote. Taking an average of each side I'd go so far as to say that the Obama/Biden ticket is prettier too. And more likable. Wait. Remind me: why is anybody supporting McPalin?

The VP debate was not the bloodbath that many were hoping it would be. Sarah Palin had all her lines memorized like a good automaton. Biden wisely softened his smile and he tempered the edge on his gaze. He focused on McCain and let Palin remain empty even while letting her seem half confident. Seem. Half. Where she fell apart was in the issues that reveal her backward views. This isn't about a stupid person serving next to the president; it's about dangerous philosophies that would poison the Potomac.

Palin believes the role of the vice president is ambiguously suspended between the legislative and executive branches. This is the philosophy that allowed Dick Cheney to deflect accountability and oversight while breaking knees and biting ears for the President.

Palin wants to deny rights to same-sex marriages if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. She promised that she is and would be nothing less than tolerant. But don't believe it. It's not tolerance that fights against changing a bigoted tradition saying unfortunately, that's sometimes where those steps lead. It is only intolerance that is unwilling because of tradition to take the step of granting every couple the right to choose marriage.

Palin told Katie Couric that she would find some examples of McCain pushing for more regulation. Joe Biden gave her an opportunity to show the fruits of her research. And her response?

Palin: I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.

I'm hoping the undecided voters have been waiting for an answer. I'm hoping they're demanding one. Because she gave none. Last night was an opportunity to go beyond mere personality. But from Palin we saw no policy revelation or delineation of steps for change. And if that camp can't come up with evidence that McCain will likely push for regulation then why the hell don't they come up with an argument that he shouldn't. That's his stance. That's the pedigree of his economic philosophy. And there are many many people out there who are still on board with that philosophy. The refusal to argue the point is both stubborn and weak. And it reveals not just their lack of resolve on an issue, but also the inability to formulate any argument that effectively contradicts Barack Obama's stated goals and the history he has of pushing for them. This is evidence enough that a vote for McCain is based not on any faith in his ability to manage the economy.

Vote for McCain -- Because you don't care about the middle class either.

So it's a foreign-policy/defense thing? McCain supported the surge. But what next? What standard to leave Iraq? His plan doesn't say how; it says when. So when? According to McCain it doesn't matter. He believes in the dignity of waiting.

Biden called for some specifics of a plan for Iraq, and all McCain has put in the chamber is a call for victory. He expects the voters to trust him when he says that waiting is necessary.

Well it's not. It's not necessary because we should not stay in Iraq just to prove that we can. Palin had nothing to add to this. She had nothing because They have nothing. And the most disturbing thing is that it seems to be a bragging point for her. No wait. The most disturbing thing is that these answers worked for some viewers.

I can understand that some voters have made up their minds and they're not listening for arguments. We're all guilty of that at times. And some voters argue on a platform of values that I don't share. If you believe homosexuality is a sin and you believe the constitution should define it as an aberration because of your reading of the bible, then I'll assume that you don't care much for distestablishmentarianism. You might take issue with my conjecture but at that point the argument changes and it's no longer about the candidates.

So getting back to them--

We don't know what the undecided voters are waiting to hear. It might be that they're not sure what the economy needs. They might be unclear on Iraq. Perhaps they have not yet resolved the competing stories. If they haven't seen the numbers they don't know how to judge the tax plans. If they haven't read the bill they don't know what to think of Obama's support of kindergarten sex-education. They might not know if the arguments are misleading or incomplete.

Ignorance is accepted. And it's easy to remedy. In the debate Palin showed some rhetorical dexterity. But she did so by encouraging ignorance by flaunting her necessary incuriosity. I hope that undecided voters are still monitoring the balance because of their refusal to settle on that same ignorance.

Oldies but... well just oldies

Poor McCain -- he thinks everyone's memory is as bad as his. Surely he must realize that every time he complains about $3 million for the papa bear study, someone mentions Palin's $3.2 million humping harbor seal project -- right? And he has used that paternal/criminal line so many times that he's even forgotten it's supposed to be funny. This one has to be one of the worst deliveries of a joke I've ever seen. He's scolding us even before he's done with the punchline.

They're probably taking bets in Obama's camp -- how far will McCain and Obama get into their next debate before the old guy shakes his finger and screeches out 'Why yoooou little whippersnapper!'

McCain to Base Foreign Policy on Average Height of Citizens

I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict.

-John McCain

Though I'm not sure he actually has learned that lesson.

Despite all this, McCain has probably convinced some voters that Obama just "doesn't understand" this stuff. Not because McCain has made a valid argument but because it's easy to remember the line. And if you're going for numbers you should bet on the public being easily fooled. Obama did a good job of looking confident on every issue. He probably could have been a little more smug about what he does understand. Maybe something like a nice complex explanation followed by a line like I understand *that*, John. And I can explain it again -- slower, if you need me too.

I hope that Obama is saving the pounce for the economy debate. McCain is on a single peg-leg and he didn't get knocked over. C'mon Obama. Sweep the leg!

Obama's points:
Bringing up McCain's little bomb bomb bomb song.
Recalling McCain's confusion regarding Zapatero.
Talking with foreign leaders isn't just inviting them over for tea.
You don't muddle through...

He should have pushed the Spain issue further. John really stepped in it on that one. Not so much the interview as the cover-up. If you didn't hear something then it's fine to be confused. But once your staffers print out the Wikipedia page for you there's no excuse to say that you can't commit to meeting with Spain. Then in the debate McCain claims that he simply meant that he doesn't like to plan that far ahead. Who's buying this?

McCain's biggest reach: Accusing Obama of being too much like George Bush. Does he think that'll work?

On the question about sending more troops to Afghanistan, when Obama said that we have had the highest fatalities this year since the war began, McCain looked like he saw a leprechaun run under Jim Lehrer's desk. During Obama's response and throughout the debate he kept making the same face. Squinting and peering down, even covering his eyes. This isn't a political point. Unless McCain decides to chase down the rascals and bomb Ireland. Which he almost certainly would.