Death to "Alot" (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

I just read 5 different people use the word "alot" in the past hour - and I am about to spit fire. Gaaaaahhh!!! For heaven's sake!!! There. Is. No. Such. Word. It's "a (space) lot," it's a phrase, (not a word) that denotes more than one of anything. OR, it could be used to talk about an actual plot of land. Either way, remember: TWO WORDS, PEOPLE!!!

Of course, it could be a misspelled version of "allot" which means to give a portion of something. But using context clues, those people didn't mean that what they wrote (*shudder*) "alot."

OK?!?! OK!!!

Gaaaaaaahhh!!!

*pant-pant-pant*

In Defense of the Semicolon (Grammar Entry!!!)

Thank you to Biba for showing me this article from MSN encarta! I haven't had a grammar entry in so long, so this is great! :-)

In Defense of the Semicolon
By Martha Brockenbrough

It's hard out there if you're a semicolon.
How would you like to be called "pompous," "hoity-toity" and "as ugly as a tick on a dog"? Lest you have any doubt about how ugly that really is, check out this picture of a tick. Then dunk your eyeballs in disinfectant.

Nobody besmirches other punctuation marks quite this way. It's true that exclamation points are criticized for being low-class, and not just because a slang term for them refers to a dog's private bits. No, people pick on them because they're used to cheaply convey emotion that good writing is supposed to express.

Teachers steer students away from exclamation points, suggesting they be left out of business correspondence altogether, as if this straightened semicolon were the punctuation equivalent of the male Speedo.

Most reviled punctuation?
As humiliating as it is to be barred from the boardroom and held down by the glass ceiling of punctuation prejudice, the semicolon faces worse. It faces exile, the fate of Napoleon, who actually was a bit hoity-toity. For a mark of punctuation that lives to join closely related sentences, this solitude must be a crushing fate.

An article by Andrew Sullivan in the Financial Times of London said the revered editor Michael Kinsley wouldn't permit semicolons in the pages of The New Republic.

As Kinsley's reasoning went, semicolons, like drugs, can be abused. And while he doesn't favor drug bans, he's more sympathetic to semicolon censorship because "punctuation can't save a life."

This is really unfair. Unlike drugs, the semicolon won't give you the munchies or prevent you from safely operating heavy machinery. Nor is semicolon use a gateway to multiple punctuation marks or the wanton and alarming insertion of unnecessary apostrophes and quotation marks.

The trouble comes with using semicolons exactly as they're meant to be used.

What's a semicolon good for?
Semicolons link two complete and closely related sentences. They also separate series of items with commas -- for example: I have lived in Seattle, Wash.; Palo Alto, Calif.; and Kolybari, Crete.

Kinsley objects to the first use, the linking of complete sentences. As he told the Financial Times, if journalists use them to imply relationships that they don't explain, that's a bad thing.

I see his point. But perhaps it would be more efficient to ban journalists than to ban the innocent semicolon. In some magazines, readers might not even be able to see the difference. (Snap!)

Semicolon ascendant
Fortunately, the semicolon might be making a comeback. The New York Times ran a popular article recently, praising the semicolon's appearance on a subway sign. Erin McKean, an editor at the Oxford English Dictionary, shortly thereafter founded the Semicolon Appreciation Society (complete with downloadable membership card).

Best, however, is the advocacy of Craig Conley, America's most creative and diligent scholar of letters, words and punctuation. To wit: Conley has created a punctuation mark (the rhetorical question mark), he has written a book of one-letter words, and he is so closely related to the semicolon's spirit that he has been appointed official keeper of its dream journal.

That's right, all you haters. The semicolon has dreams: dreams of rest and relaxation at Semicolon Lakes, of conversations about Shakespeare with the mischievous Puck, and even -- gasp -- of the nightmare that is semicolon cancer.

College Resources

• College search
• Test prep for SAT, ACT and more
• Scholarships & financial aid
• Life on campus
• Online degrees

As Conley explained his close relationship with the semicolon, "I first dreamed that I was a semicolon when I was 6 years old. I vividly recall the uncanny experience of being frozen betwixt two closely related sentences. They called me 'the Go-Between.' In my dream, the words all glowed with an otherworldly green life force. Little surprise, then, that when I got my first IBM PC a decade later, typing my first glowing green semicolon brought the dream rushing back. For the past two decades, I've kept a dream journal from the semicolon's point of view."

Conley is happy when semicolons visit not just his dreams, but his discourse. He agrees with the music essayist Steven Harvey, who said in "Bound for Shady Grove" that the semicolon creates a "ringing emptiness" that "clears a space," a space for sacred silence that seals thoughts together. And he quotes Jesus Urzagasti from "In the Land of Silence," who said semicolons give us the air we need.

It's true, Conley said, that semicolons are asymmetrical. Beauty and symmetry are traditionally linked. But who doesn't admire the crooked Venus de Milo, who is one decapitated head away from being a sculptural semicolon herself?

;)
There is one bright spot for the semicolon that may keep it, despite its image, from falling off keyboards of the future. It's used to make that slyest of emoticons -- the wink -- helping us, in e-mail and text messages, say "I'm kidding, here!"

And that's good advice for people and punctuation marks that regularly face criticism. Develop a sense of humor about it, and you'll outlast your detractors -- and no doubt see many of your dreams come true. 

The Pros and Cons of Affirmative Action

I got these two excerpted articles in class again (yup, same class...I know, it was a great class!), showing both arguments concerning Affirmative Action. I think it would be good to be well-informed concerning this particular issue since it affects all of us, not just people of color. At the very least, it's an interesting read. :-)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black (pro-affirmative action)
Stanley Fish, Atlantic Monthly, November, 1993.

In this excerpted article, Stanley Fish analyzes popular arguments of those who oppose affirmative action.


“REVERSE RACISM”  

Some people argue, and argue persuasively, that affirmative action is “reverse racism.” In this country whites once set themselves apart from blacks and claimed privileges for themselves while denying them to others. Now, on the basis of race, blacks are claiming special status and reserving for themselves privileges they deny to others. Isn't one as bad as the other? The answer is no. One can see why by imagining that it is not 1993 but 1955, and that we are in a town in the South with two more or less distinct communities, one white and one black. To regard their respective racisms--if that is the word--as equivalent would be bizarre, for the hostility of one group stems not from any wrong done to it but from its wish to protect its ability to deprive citizens of their voting rights, to limit access to educational institutions, to prevent entry into the economy except at the lowest and most menial levels, and to force members of the stigmatized group to ride in the back of the bus. The hostility of the other group is the result of these actions, and whereas hostility and racial anger are unhappy facts wherever they are found, a distinction must surely be made between the hostility of the oppressors and the experience-based hostility of those who have been oppressed.

Affirmative action is the policy designed to redress the imbalances caused by long-standing discrimination.  To argue that affirmative action, which gives preferential treatment to disadvantaged minorities as part of a plan to achieve social equality, is no different from the policies that created the disadvantages is a travesty of reasoning.

"Reverse racism" describes affirmative action only if one considers the cancer of racism to be indistinguishable from the therapy we apply to it. A cancer is an invasion of the body's equilibrium, and so is chemotherapy; but we do not decline to fight the disease because the medicine we employ is also disruptive of normal functioning. Strong illness, strong remedy: the formula is as appropriate to the health of the body politic as it is to that of the body proper.

At this point someone will always say, "But two wrongs don't make a right; if it was wrong to treat blacks unfairly, it is wrong to give blacks preferences and thereby treat whites unfairly." This objection is just another version of the forgetting and rewriting of history. The problem is the adverb "unfairly," which suggests two more or less equal parties, one of whom has been unjustly penalized by an incompetent umpire. But blacks have not simply been treated unfairly; they have been subjected first to decades of slavery, and then to decades of second-class citizenship, widespread legalized discrimination, economic persecution, educational deprivation, and cultural stigmatization. They have been bought, sold, killed, beaten, raped, excluded, exploited, shamed, and scorned for a very long time. The word "unfair" is hardly an adequate description of their experience, and the belated gift of "fairness" in the form of a resolution no longer to discriminate against them legally is hardly an adequate remedy for the deep disadvantages that the prior discrimination has produced. When the deck is stacked against you in more ways than you can even count, it is a small consolation to hear that you are now free to enter the game and take your chances.

“A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD”

The same insincerity and hollowness of promise infect another formula that is popular with the anti-affirmative-action crowd: the formula of the level playing field. Here the argument usually takes the form of saying, "It is undemocratic to give one class of citizens advantages at the expense of other citizens; the truly democratic way is to have a level playing field to which everyone has access and where everyone has a fair and equal chance to succeed on the basis of his or her merit."  

Fine words--but they conceal the facts of the situation: The playing field is already tilted in favor of those by whom and for whom it was constructed in the first place. If mastery of the requirements for entry depends upon immersion in the cultural experiences of the mainstream majority, if the skills that make for success are nurtured by institutions and cultural practices from which the disadvantaged minority has been systematically excluded, if the language and ways of comporting oneself that identify a player as "one of us" are alien to the lives minorities are forced to live, then words like "fair" and "equal" are cruel jokes, for what they promote and celebrate is an institutionalized unfairness and a perpetuated inequality. The playing field is already tilted, and the resistance to altering it by the mechanisms of affirmative action is in fact a determination to make sure that the present imbalances persist as long as possible.

One way of tilting the field is the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Affirmative action opponents often use examples of white or Asian students denied admission to colleges and universities even though their SAT scores were higher than the scores of some others--often African Americans--who were admitted to the same institution. This, some say, is evidence that affirmative-action policies in colleges and universities tend "to depreciate the importance of merit criteria in admissions."

The assumption--and it is one that many would share--it that the test does in fact measure merit, with merit understood as a quality objectively determined in the same way that body temperature can be objectively determined.

In fact, however, the test is nothing of the kind. Statistical studies have suggested that test scores reflect income and socioeconomic status. It has been demonstrated again and again that scores vary in relation to cultural background; the test's questions assume a certain uniformity in educational experience and lifestyle and penalize those who, for whatever reason, have had a different experience and lived different kinds of lives. In short, what is being measured by the SAT is not absolutes like native ability and merit but accidents like birth, social position, access to libraries, and the opportunity to take vacations or to take SAT prep courses.

Furthermore, as David Owen notes on None of the Above: Behind the Myth of Scholastic Aptitude (1985), the "correlation between SAT scores and college grades is lower than the correlation between weight and height; in other words you would have a better chance of predicting a person's height by looking at his weight than you would of predicting his freshman grades by looking only at his SAT scores."

“CLASS IS THE PROBLEM, NOT RACE”  

Nevertheless, opponents have at least one more card to play against affirmative action, and it is a strong one. Granted, they say, the playing field is not level and access to it is reserved for an already advantaged elite, but the disadvantages suffered by others are less racial than socioeconomic. Therefore universities should alter their criteria of application from race to socioeconomic disadvantage" and thus avoid the unfairness of current policies that reward middle-class or affluent blacks at the expense of poor whites.

Despite the fact that 98 percent of the race-specific scholarships were also scholarships to the economically disadvantaged, it is said that the other two percent--nonpoor, middle-class, economically favored blacks--are receiving special attention on the basis of disadvantages they do not experience. What about them? Their race has not been a disadvantage.

But the lie was given dramatically to this assumption in a 1991 broadcast of the ABC program PrimeTime Live. In a stunning fifteen-minute segment reporters and a camera crew followed two young men of equal education, cultural sophistication, level of apparent influence, and so forth around St. Louis, a city where neither was known. The two differed in only a single respect: one was white, the other black. But that small difference turned out to mean everything. In a series of encounters with shoe salesmen, record-store employees, rental agents, landlords, employment agencies, taxicab drivers, and ordinary citizens, the black member of the pair was either ignored or given a special and suspicious attention. He was asked to pay more for the same goods or come up with a larger down payment for the same car, was turned away as a prospective tenant, was rejected as a prospective taxicab fare, was treated with contempt and irritation by clerks and bureaucrats, and in every way possible was made to feel inferior and unwanted.

The inescapable conclusion was that alike though they may have been in almost all respects, one of these young men, because he was black, would lead a significantly lesser life than his white counterpart: he would be housed less well and at a greater expense; he would pay more for services and products when and if he was given the opportunity to buy them; he would have difficulty establishing credit; the first emotions he would inspire on the part of many people he met would be distrust and fear; his abilities would be discounted even before he had a chance to display them; and, above all, the treatment he received from minute to minute would chip away at his self-esteem and self-confidence with consequences that most of us could not even imagine. As the young man in question said at the conclusion of the broadcast, "You walk down the street with a suit and tie and it doesn't matter. Someone will make determinations about you, determinations that affect the quality of your life."

Of course, the same determinations are being made quite early on by kindergarten teachers, grade school principals, high school guidance counselors, and the like, with results that cut across socioeconomic lines and place young black men and women in the ranks of the disadvantaged no matter what the bank accounts of their parents happen to show. Racism is a cultural fact, and although its effects may to some extent be diminished by socioeconomic variables, those effects will still be sufficiently great to warrant the nation's attention and thus the continuation of affirmative-action policies.

“WHY ME?”

When all is said and done, one objection to affirmative action is unanswerable on its own terms, and that is the objection of the individual who says, "Why me? Sure, discrimination has persisted for many years, and I acknowledge that the damage done has not been removed by changes in the law. But why me? I didn't own slaves; I didn't vote to keep people on the back of the bus; I didn't turn water hoses on civil-rights marchers. Why, then, should I be the one who doesn't get the job or who doesn't get the scholarship or who gets bumped back to the waiting list?"

I sympathize with this feeling, if only because in a small way I have had the experience that produces it. I was recently nominated for an administrative post at a large university. Early signs were encouraging, but after an interval I received notice that I would not be included at the next level, and subsequently I was told unofficially that a decision had been made to look only in the direction of women and minorities. Although I was disappointed, I did not conclude that the situation was "unfair," because the policy was obviously not directed at me.  Nor was it directed at persons of my race and sex--the policy was not intended to disenfranchise white males. Rather, the policy was driven by other considerations, and it was only as a by-product of those considerations--not as the main goal--that white males like me were rejected. Given that the institution in question has a low percentage of minority administrators, it made perfect sense to focus on women and minority candidates, and within that sense, not as a result of prejudice, my whiteness and maleness became disqualifications.

 “INDIVIDUAL MERIT”

The point of fairness is not a difficult one to grasp, but it is difficult to see when scenarios are presented as simple contrasts between two de-contextualized persons who emerge from nowhere to contend for a job or place in a freshman class. Here is Individual A; he has a board score of 1,300. And here is Individual B; her score is only 1,200, yet she is admitted and A is rejected. Is that fair? Given the minimal information provided, the answer is of course no. But the sleight-of-hand logic that assesses events from behind a veil of willful ignorance rests on another key word in the anti-affirmative-action lexicon. That word is "individual."  Now, "individual" and "individualism" have been honorable words in the American political vocabulary, but like any other word or concept, the word can be perverted to serve ends the opposite of those it originally served, and this is what has happened when in the name of individual rights, millions of individuals are prevented from redressing documented wrongs. Bizarre as it may seem, individualism in this argument turns out to mean that everyone is or should be the same.

This dismissal of individual difference in the name of the individual would be funny were its consequences not so serious: it is the mechanism by which imbalances and inequities suffered by millions of people through no fault of their own can be sanitized and even celebrated as the natural workings of unfettered democracy.

"Individualism," "fairness," "merit"—these three words are continually misappropriated by bigots who have learned that they need not put on a white hood or bar access to the ballot box in order to secure their ends. Rather, they need only clothe themselves in a vocabulary plucked from its historical context and made into the justification for attitudes and policies they would not acknowledge if frankly named.

Stanley Fish. "How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black." Atlantic Monthly, November 1993.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Negative Vote on Affirmative Action (Excerpts)
Shelby Steele, New York Times Magazine, 1990

In a few short years, when my two children will be applying to college, the affirmative-action policies by which most universities offer black students some form of preferential treatment will present me with a dilemma. I am a middle-class black, a college professor, far from wealthy, but also well removed from the kind of deprivation that would qualify my children for the label "disadvantaged." Both of them have endured racial insensitivity from whites. They have been called names, have suffered slights and have experienced first hand the peculiar malevolence that racism brings out of people. Yet they have never experienced racial discrimination, have never been stopped by their race on any path they have chosen to follow. Still, their society now tells them that if they will only designate themselves as black on their college applications, they will probably do better in the college lottery than if they conceal this fact.

Of course many supporters of affirmative action would say that this small preference is meager recompense for centuries of unrelieved oppression. And to these arguments other very obvious facts must be added. In America, many marginally competent or flatly incompetent whites are hired every day--some because their white skin suits the racial preference of their employers. The white children of alumni are often grandfathered into elite universities in what can only be seen as a residual benefit of historic white privilege. Worse, white incompetence is always an individual matter, but for blacks it is often confirmation of ugly stereotypes. Given that unfairness cuts both ways, doesn't it only balance the scales of history, doesn't this repay, in a small way, the systematic denial under which my children's grandfather lived out his days?

Good intentions can blind us to the effects they generate when implemented. But after 20 years of implementation I think that affirmative action has shown itself to be more bad than good and that blacks--whom I will focus on in this essay--now stand to lose more from it than they gain.

ORIGINAL MANDATES

I believe they do this because of what happened to white and black Americans in the crucible of the 1960's, when whites were confronted with their racial guilt and blacks tasted their first real power. Affirmative action became a meeting ground for those mandates in the law. At first, this meant insuring equal opportunity. The 1964 civil-rights bill was passed on the understanding that equal opportunity would not mean racial preference. But in the late 60's and early 70's, affirmative action underwent a remarkable escalation of its mission from simple anti-discrimination enforcement to social engineering by means of quotas, goals, time-tables, set-asides and other forms of preferential treatment.

Legally, this was achieved through a series of executive orders and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines that allowed racial imbalances in the workplace to stand as proof of racial discrimination. Once it could be assumed that discrimination explained racial imbalances, it became easy to justify group remedies to presumed discrimination rather than the normal case-by-case redress.

I don't think these mandates, in themselves, were wrong, because whites clearly needed to do better by blacks and blacks needed more real power in society. But as they came together in affirmative action, their effect was to distort our understanding of racial discrimination. By making black the color of preference, these mandates have re-burdened society with the very marriage of color and preference (in reverse) that we set out to eradicate.

DIVERSITY vs. DEVELOPMENT

When affirmative action grew into social engineering, diversity became a golden word. Diversity is a term that applies democratic principles to races and cultures rather than to individuals.  Too often the result of this, on campuses for example, has been a democracy of colors rather than of people, an artificial diversity that gives the appearance of an educational parity between black and white students that has not yet been achieved in reality. Here again, racial preferences allow society to leapfrog over the difficult problem of developing blacks to parity with whites and into a cosmetic diversity that covers the blemish of disparity.

Racial representation is not the same thing as racial development. Representation can be manufactured; development is always hard earned. The fact is that after 20 years of racial preference the gap between median incomes of black and white families is greater than it was in the 1970's. None of this is to say that blacks don't need policies that insure our right to equal opportunity, but what we need more of is the development that will let us take advantage of society's efforts to include us.

UNDERMINES SELF-RESPECT

I think one of the most troubling effects of racial preferences for blacks is a kind of demoralization. Under affirmative action, the quality that earns us preferential treatment is an implied inferiority. However this inferiority is explained--and it is easily enough explained by the myriad deprivations that grew out of our oppression--it is still inferiority. There are explanations and then there is the fact.  In integrated situations in which blacks must compete with whites who may be better prepared, these explanations may quickly wear thin and expose the individual to racial as well as personal self-doubt. (Of course whites also feel doubt, but only personally, not racially.)

What this means in practical terms is that when blacks deliver themselves into integrated situations they encounter a nasty little reflex in whites, a mindless atavistic reflex that responds to the color black with negative stereotypes, such as intellectual ineptness. I think this reflex embarrasses most whites today and thus it is usually quickly repressed. On an equally atavistic level, the black will be aware of the reflex his color triggers and will feel a stab of horror at seeing himself reflected in this way. He, too, will do a quick repression, but a lifetime of such stabbings is what constitutes his inner realm of racial doubt. Even when the black sees no implication of inferiority in racial preferences, he knows that whites do, so that--consciously or unconsciously--the result is virtually the same. The effect of preferential treatment--the lowering of normal standards to increase black representation--puts blacks at war with an expanded realm of debilitating doubt, so that the doubt itself undermines their ability to perform, especially in integrated situations.

CREATES VICTIM MENTALITY

I believe another liability of affirmative action comes from the fact that it indirectly encourages blacks to exploit their own past victimization. Like implied inferiority, victimization is what justifies preference, so that to receive the benefits of preferential treatment one must, to some extent, become invested in the view of one's self as a victim. In this way, affirmative action nurtures a victim-focused identity in blacks and sends us the message that there is more power in our past suffering than in our present achievements.

THE ILLUSION OF REPARATION

But I think one of the worst prices that blacks pay for preference has to do with an illusion. I saw this illusion at work recently in the mother of a middle-class black student who was going off to his first semester of college: "They owe us this, so don't think for a minute that you don't belong there." This is the logic by which many blacks, and some whites, justify affirmative action--it is something "owed," a form of reparation. But this logic overlooks a much harder and less digestible reality, that it is impossible to repay blacks living today for the historic suffering of the race. If all blacks were given a million dollars tomorrow it would not amount to a dime on the dollar for three centuries of oppression, nor would it dissolve the residues of that oppression that we still carry today. The concept of historic reparation grows out of man's need to impose on the world a degree of justice that simply does not exist. Suffering can be endured and overcome, it cannot be repaid. To think otherwise is to prolong the suffering.

Several blacks I spoke with said they were still in favor of affirmative action because of the "subtle" discrimination blacks were subject to once they were on the job. One photojournalist said, "They have ways of ignoring you." A black female television producer said: "You can't file a lawsuit when your boss doesn't invite you to the insider meetings without ruining your career. So we still need affirmative action." Others mentioned the infamous "glass ceiling" through which blacks can see the top positions of authority but never reach them. But I don't think racial preferences are a protection against this subtle discrimination; I think they contribute to it.

AN EXCUSE FOR WHITE RACISM

I think that much of the "subtle" discrimination that blacks talk about is often (not always) discrimination against the stigma of questionable competence that affirmative action marks blacks with. In this sense, preferences make scapegoats of the very people they seek to help. And it may be that at a certain level employers impose a glass ceiling, but this may not be against the race so much as against the race's reputation for having advanced by color as much as by competence. This ceiling is the point at which corporations shift the emphasis from color to competency and stop playing the affirmative-action game.

Here preference backfires for blacks and becomes a taint that holds them back. Of course one could argue that this taint, which is after all in the minds of whites, becomes nothing more than an excuse to discriminate against blacks. And certainly the result is the same in either case--blacks don't get past the glass ceiling. But this argument does not get around the fact that racial preferences now taint this color with the new theme of suspicion that makes blacks even more vulnerable to discrimination. In this crucial yet gray area of perceived competence, preferences make whites look better than they are and blacks worse, while doing nothing whatever to stop the very real discrimination that blacks may encounter. I don't wish to justify the glass ceiling here, but only to suggest the very subtle ways that affirmative action revives rather than extinguishes the old realizations for racial discrimination.

THE ONLY SOLUTION

It now seems clear that the Supreme Court, in a series of recent decisions, is moving away from racial preferences. It has disallowed preferences except in instances of "identified discrimination," eroded the precedent that statistical racial imbalances are prima facie evidence of discrimination, and, in effect, granted white males the right to challenge consent degrees that use preference to achieve racial balances in the workplace. Referring to this and other Supreme Court decisions, one civil-rights leader said, "Night has fallen as far as civil rights are concerned." I am not so sure.  But if not preferences, what?

I think we need social policies that are committed to two goals: the educational and economic development of disadvantaged people regardless of race and the eradication from our society--through close monitoring and severe sanctions--of racial, ethnic or gender discrimination. Preferences will not get us to either of these goals, because they tend to benefit those who are not disadvantaged --middle-class white women and middle-class blacks--and attack one form of discrimination with another. Preferences are inexpensive and carry the glamour of good intentions--change the numbers and the good deed is done. To be against them is to be unkind. But I think the unkindest cut is to bestow on children like my own an undeserved advantage while neglecting the development of those disadvantaged children in the poorer sections of my city who will most likely never be in a position to benefit from a preference. Give my children fairness; give disadvantaged children a better shot at development--better elementary and secondary schools, job training, safer neighborhoods, better financial assistance for college and so on.

The mandates of black power and white absolution out of which preferences emerged were not wrong in themselves. What was wrong was that both races focused more on the goals of those mandates than on the means to the goals. Blacks can have no real power without taking responsibility for their own educational and economic development. Whites can have no racial innocence without earning it by eradicating discrimination and helping the disadvantaged to develop. Because we ignored the means, the goals have not been reached and the real work remains to be done.

Shelby Steele. "A Negative Vote on Affirmative Action." Excerpted from The Content of Our Character by Shelby Steele. Originally published in The New York Times Magazine, May 13, 1990.
 

 

Questions on Sexuality

Have you ever wondered what it felt like to be asked to justify your sexual orientation all the time? For most of us who are heterosexual, it might not be something we have to think about often (if at all). But for a lot of homosexuals, it's a whole different story.

My teacher gave this set of questions for us to answer to somehow get to know what homosexuals have to go through almost every time they "come out" to a new person. If you're heterosexual and you answer these questions, you might find yourself shaking your head because the questions seem silly. Just think, it's only silly because heterosexuality is the default sexual orientation of our society. Imagine what it feels like to have a "non-normal" sexual orientation and have to answer these silly (and sometimes hurtful) questions all the time just to justify your existence.

Food for thought. :-)

. . . . . . . .

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
2. When and how did you decide that you were a heterosexual?
3. Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase that you may grow out of?
4. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?
5. If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, is it possible that all you need is a good gay or lesbian lover?
6. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?
7. Why do you heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others into your lifestyle?
8. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Why can' t you just be what you are and keep quiet about it?
9. Would you want your children to be heterosexual knowing the problems that they'd face?
10. A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual. Do you consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?
11. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
12. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
13. Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual like you?
14. Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective? Don't you fear (s)he might be incline to influence you in the direction of his/her own leanings?
15. How can you become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexuality, and fail to develop your natural, healthy, homosexual potential?
    

What the Bible Says — and Doesn’t Say — About Homosexuality

Yes, again, taken from one of my classes...

Written by Rev. Mel White, a homosexual Christian and co-founder of Soulforce.

(Note: In this work, White sets forth eight broad premises about interpreting biblical passages. This abridgement includes only a few of these premises.)  

***

LIKE YOU, I TAKE THE BIBLE SERIOUSLY!

Many good people build their case against homosexuality almost entirely on the Bible. These folks value Scripture, and are serious about seeking its guidance in their lives. Unfortunately, many of them have never really studied what the Bible does and doesn't say about homosexuality.

We gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christians take the Bible seriously, too. Personally, I've spent more than 50 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching, and teaching from the sacred texts. I earned my master's and doctoral degrees at a conservative biblical seminary to better equip myself to "rightly divide the word of truth." I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own.

I'm convinced the Bible has a powerful message for gay and lesbian Christians -- as well as straight Christians. But it's not the message of condemnation we so often hear.
I'm not expecting you to take my word for it, though. I ask only that you'd consider what my research has taught me about the passages used by some people to condemn God's gay and lesbian children. Then decide for yourself...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MY FIFTH PREMISE:
We miss what these passages say about God when we spend so much time debating what they say about sex.
If the Bible is the story of God's love for the world and not a handbook about sex, then that should shape how we read the Scriptures. So as we take a look at the six biblical texts that are used by some people to condemn homosexuality, let's ask two questions about each of them:
First, what does the text say about God that we need to hear but might be missing?
Second, what might the text be saying about homosexuality?

PASSAGE 1
GENESIS 2:21-25
THE CREATION STORY
Let's start "In the Beginning..." What does the creation story in Genesis 1-2 say about God?
I'm so tired of reading signs carried by protesters that say: "It's about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." In fact, the creation story is as important to Adam and Steve as it is Adam and Eve. Gays and non-gays alike need to know and celebrate the truth at the center of this story.
This creation story is primarily about God, a story written to show the power of God who created the world and everything in it. It teaches us that ultimately God is our Creator, that God shaped us, and that God said, "It's good." Isn't this the heart of the text?

Now what does the creation story say about homosexuality? Because the text says it is "natural" that a man and a woman come together to create a new life, some people think this means gay or lesbian couples are "unnatural." They read this interpretation into the text, even though the text is silent about all kinds of relationships that don't lead to having children:

• couples who are unable to have children
• couples who are too old to have children
• couples who choose not to have children
• people who are single

Are these relationships (or lack of relationships) "unnatural"? There's nothing said here that condemns or approves the love that people of the same sex have for each other, including the love I have for my partner, Gary.  So I believe the creation story says a lot about God's power and presence in the universe -- but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

PASSAGE 2
GENESIS 19:1-14
THE STORY OF SODOM
Now let's consider the second biblical text used by some people to condemn God's gay children. You remember the ancient story of Sodom. First, what does the story of Sodom in Genesis 19 say about God?

When Gary and I arrive at a college or university to speak, there are often protesters carrying signs that read, "Mel White, Sodomite." (Has a nice ring to it.) Actually, I'm not from Sodom. That city was buried beneath the Dead Sea centuries ago. I'm from California -- but perhaps that just confirms their suspicions!

Once again, this story is not primarily about sex. It is primarily about God. Some people say the city of Sodom was destroyed because it was overrun by sexually obsessed homosexuals. In fact, the city of Sodom had been doomed to destruction long before. So what is this passage really about?  Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality. Even Billy Graham doesn't mention homosexuality when he preaches on Sodom.

Listen to what Ezekiel 16:48-49 tell us: "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes."

Today, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike do well to remember that we break God's heart when we spend all we earn on ourselves, when we forget the poor and hungry, when we refuse to do justice or show mercy, when we leave strangers at the gate.

I admit, there are a lot of gay folk who are Sodomites (and a lot of straight folk as well). Sodomites are rich and don't share what they have with the poor. Sodomites have plenty and want more. While millions are hungry, homeless, and sick, Sodomites rush to build bigger homes, buy bigger cars, and own more property -- putting their trust in safer stock portfolios and more secure retirement accounts.

Whatever teaching about sexuality you might get out of this passage, be sure to hear this central, primary truth about God as well. God has called us do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our Creator. Sodom was destroyed because its people didn't take God seriously about caring for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, or the outcast.  But what does the story of Sodom say about homosexual orientation as we understand it today? Nothing.

It was common for soldiers, thieves, and bullies to rape a fallen enemy, asserting their victory by dehumanizing and demeaning the vanquished. This act of raping an enemy is about power and revenge, not about homosexuality or homosexual orientation. And it is still happening.

The sexual act that occurs in the story of Sodom is a gang rape -- and homosexuals oppose gang rape as much as anyone. That's why I believe the story of Sodom says a lot about God's will for each of us, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

PASSAGE 3
LEVITICUS 18:22 AND 20:13
THE HOLINESS CODE
Let's move on. What do the two verses sometimes cited from Leviticus say about God?
Leviticus 18:6 reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination." A similar verse occurs two chapters later, in Leviticus 20:13: "A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination and should be executed." On the surface, these words could leave you feeling rather uneasy, especially if you are gay. But just below the surface is the deeper truth about God -- and it has nothing to do with sex.

Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code includes many of the outdated sexual laws we mentioned earlier, and a lot more. It also includes prohibitions against round haircuts, tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, getting your fortune told, and even playing with the skin of a pig. (There goes football!)

So what's a holiness code? It's a list of behaviors that people of faith find offensive in a certain place and time. In this case, the code was written for priests only, and its primary intent was to set the priests of Israel over and against priests of other cultures.

At the age of 10, I signed a holiness code written by the Women's Christian Temperance Union that said I would never taste beer, wine, or liquor. I thought signing it would please God and my grandmother. That's a holiness code. When I was in high school we evangelical Christians had an unwritten holiness code that went like this: "I don't drink, smoke, or chew, or go with girls who do." Now I know what you're thinking. That last part about "girls who do" proved especially easy for me. But the point is that I obeyed this evangelical holiness code because my parents said that breaking these rules didn't please God, and I knew it didn't please them.

We had another evangelical holiness code while I was in high school that prohibited dancing. I was student body president, yet I refused to go to the prom because I had promised not to dance. I did this to please God and my mother -- whose mother had made her sign a holiness code that she wouldn't go to dances either.

What about this word abomination that comes up in both passages? In Hebrew, "abominations" (TO'EBAH) are behaviors that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive. To the Jews an abomination was not a law, not something evil like rape or murder forbidden by the Ten Commandments. It was a common behavior by non-Jews that Jews thought was displeasing to God.

Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers. Nevertheless, there are still people who pull the two verses about men sleeping together from this ancient holiness code to say that the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality.

But wait, before we go any further, let's ask: What does this text say about God? Even if the old holiness codes no longer apply to us as Christians, it's important to remember that in every age, people of faith are responsible for setting moral and ethical standards that honor God. But we people of faith must be very careful not to allow our own prejudices to determine what those standards should be.

Instead of selecting one item from an ancient Jewish holiness code and using it to condemn sexual or gender minorities, let's talk together about setting sexual standards that please God -- standards appropriate for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, standards based on loving concern, health, and wholeness for ourselves and for others.

Now what do the Leviticus passages say about homosexuality?  I'm convinced those passages say nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. Here's why. Consider this single Bible passage that was used for centuries to condemn masturbation: "He spilled his seed on the ground... And the thing which Onan did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also" (Genesis 38:9-10). For Jewish writers of Scripture, a man sleeping with another man was an abomination. But it was also an abomination (and one worthy of death) to masturbate or even to interrupt coitus (to halt sex with your spouse before ejaculation as an act of birth control). Why were these sexual practices considered abominations by Scripture writers in these ancient times?

Because the Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that the male semen contained the whole of life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the man's sperm contained the whole child and that the woman provided only the incubating space. Therefore, the spilling of semen without possibility of having a child was considered murder.

The Jews were a small tribe struggling to populate a country. They were outnumbered by their enemy. You can see why these ancient people felt it was an abomination to risk "wasting" even a single child. But the passage says nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

We've talked about the passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that are used (or misused) by some people to condemn sexual minorities. Now let's look at three verses from the letters of the apostle Paul in the Christian Scriptures that are used the same way. Remember: First, we'll ask what the text says about God; second, we'll consider what it may or may not say about sexual orientation.

PASSAGE 4
ROMANS 1:26-27
NATURAL AND UNNATURAL
What does Romans 1:26-27 say about God?

For our discussion, this is the most controversial biblical passage of them all. In Romans 1:26-27 the apostle Paul describes non-Jewish women who exchange "natural use for unnatural" and non-Jewish men who "leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other."  This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let's go back 2,000 years and try to understand why.

Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) -- all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.

The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God. Our Creator celebrates our passion. But the Bible is also clear that when passion gets control of our lives, we're in deep trouble.  When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God's children and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul's time. In our obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who created us -- and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the great dreams God has for our lives.

Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because they were lesbian or gay? I don't think so. Did God abandon them because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again.

In our Soulforce video, There's a Wideness in God's Mercy, the Rev. Dr. Louis B. Smedes, a distinguished Christian author and ethicist, describes exactly how the Bible says these promiscuous priests and priestesses got into this mess. Once again it has nothing to do with homosexuality:

SMEDES: "The people Paul had in mind refused to acknowledge and worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God. And being abandoned by God, they sank into sexual depravity."

SMEDES: "The homosexuals I know have not rejected God at all; they love God and they thank God for his grace and his gifts. How, then, could they have been abandoned to homosexuality as a punishment for refusing to acknowledge God?"

SMEDES: "Nor have the homosexuals that I know given up heterosexual passions for homosexual lusts. They have been homosexual from the moment of their earliest sexual stirrings. They did not change from one orientation to another; they just discovered that they were homosexual. It would be unnatural for most homosexuals to have heterosexual sex."

SMEDES: "And the homosexual people I know do not lust after each other any more than heterosexual people do... their love for one another is likely to be just as spiritual and personal as any heterosexual love can be."

Getting to know a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person of faith will help you realize that it is unreasonable (and unjust) to compare our love for each other to the rituals of the priests and priestesses who pranced around the statues of Aphrodite and Diana. Once again, I feel certain this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it.

You'll also note that Romans 2 begins with "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." Even after he describes the disturbing practices he has seen, Paul warns us that judging others is God's business, not ours.

PASSAGES 5 AND 6
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1:10
THE MYSTERY OF "MALOKOIS" AND "ARSENOKOITAI"
Now what do the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 say, first, about God, and then about homosexuality? These are the last two places in the Bible that seem to refer to same-sex behavior. We can combine them because they are so similar.

Paul is exasperated. The Christians in Ephesus and Corinth are fighting among themselves. (Sound familiar?) In Corinth they're even suing one another in secular courts. Paul shouts across the distance, "You are breaking God's heart by the way you are treating one another."

Like any good writer, Paul anticipates their first question: "Well, how are we supposed to treat one another?" Paul answers, "You know very well how to treat one another from the Jewish law written on tablets of stone."

The Jewish law was created by God to help regulate human behavior. To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat one another, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first. Don't kill one another. Don't sleep with a person who is married to someone else. Don't lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes "malokois" and "arsenokoitai."

Here's where the confusion begins. What's a malokois? What's an arsenokoitai? Actually, those two Greek words have confused scholars to this very day. We'll say more about them later, when we ask what the texts say about sex. But first let's see what the texts say about God.

After quoting from the Jewish law, Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that they are under a new law: the law of Jesus, a law of love that requires us to do more than just avoid murder, adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing. Paul tells them what God wants is not strict adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that isn't phony.

That's the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.

So what do these two texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and lesbians on that list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to make an entirely different point?  Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant "effeminate call boys." The New Revised Standard Version says "male prostitutes."  As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't know exactly what it means -- and the fact that we don't know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of "the effeminate call boys." We might call them "dirty old men." Others translate the word as "sodomites," but never explain what that means.

In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

In the past, people used Paul's writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society.
Now we have to ask ourselves, "Is it happening again?" Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society's prejudice and condemn God's gay children?

We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.

Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

MY SIXTH PREMISE:
The biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it.

We've looked closely at the six biblical texts used by some people to condemn homosexuality. But we must also remember that Jesus, the Jewish prophets, and even Paul never even comment on the responsible love a gay man or lesbian feels for another.  The Bible is completely silent on the issue of homosexual orientation. And no wonder. Homosexual orientation wasn't even known until the 19th century.

The discovery that some of us are created and/or shaped in our earliest infancy toward same-gender attraction was made in the last 150 years. Biblical authors knew nothing about sexual orientation. Old Testament authors and Paul assumed all people were created heterosexual, just as they believed the earth was flat, that there were heavens above and hell below, and that the sun moved up and down.

In 1864, almost 3,000 years after Moses and at least 18 centuries after the apostle Paul, the German social scientist Karl Heinrich Ulrichs was the first to declare that homosexuals were a distinct class of individuals. It was a big moment for all sexual minorities. It's our Columbus discovering the New World. It's our Madame Curie discovering radium used for Xrays. It's our Neil Armstrong walking on the moon. It may seem like one small step for the rest of you, but it's a giant leap for us.

Ulrichs assured the world of what we who are homosexual already know in our hearts. We aren't just heterosexuals choosing to perform same-sex behaviors. We are a whole class of people whose drive to same-sex intimacy is at the very core of our being from the very beginning of our lives.

Although the word homosexual was not used for the first time until later in the 19th century, Ulrichs recognized that homosexuals had been around from the beginning of recorded time, that we were "innately different from heterosexuals," and that our desire for same-sex intimacy and affiliation is intrinsic, natural, inborn and/or shaped in earliest infancy. According to Dr. Ulrichs, what may have looked "unnatural" to Moses and Paul was in fact "natural" to homosexuals.

So this is my sixth premise. The Biblical authors knew nothing of homosexual orientation as we understand it, and therefore said nothing to condemn or approve it.  The authors of the Bible are authorities in matters of faith. They can be trusted when they talk about God. But they should not be considered the final authorities on sexual orientation any more than they are the final authorities on space travel, gravity, or the Internet.

Since the writers of Scripture are not the final authorities on human sexuality, since they didn't even know about sexual orientation as we understand it today, since Jesus and the Jewish prophets were silent about any kind of same-sex behavior, I am persuaded that the Bible has nothing in it to approve or condemn homosexual orientation as we understand it.

MY SEVENTH PREMISE:
Although the prophets, Jesus, and other biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today, they are clear about one thing: As we search for truth, we are to "love one another."

We may not be able to use the Bible as our final authority on sexual orientation. But as we search for the truth, we can and should use the Bible as our final authority on how we should treat one another along the way.

A young Jewish scholar asked Jesus, "What is the greatest commandment?" Quoting the prophets, Jesus replied, "The great commandment is this... to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and the second command is like it, to love your neighbor as you love yourself."

"This is my commandment," Jesus said, "that you love one another, as I have loved you." On this the Bible is explicitly clear. Even if we disagree about what the Bible seems to say about homosexuality, we can agree that above all else we are commanded by the Scriptures to love God and to love one another.  Since God is the God of truth, since Jesus himself told us that the truth would set us free, one way that we love God and love one another is by seeking the truth about sexual orientation wherever we can find it.

There is a growing body of evidence from science, psychology, history, psychiatry, medicine, and personal experience that leads to a clear verdict: Homosexuality is neither a sickness nor a sin. Unfortunately, the church has always been slow, if not the last institution on earth, to accept new truth.

In 1632 the scientist Galileo (who was a man of faith) dared to support the radical 15th-century idea of Copernicus that all planets, including the earth, revolve around the sun. Immediately, Galileo was proclaimed a heretic by the Pope who quoted Scriptures in his attempt to disprove what science was proving.

Earlier, Protestant heroes had joined in quoting Scriptures condemning Copernicus. These weren't evil men. But they couldn't admit that the Bible was a book about God, not about astronomy -- just as good men and women today have trouble admitting that the Bible is a book about God, not about human sexuality.

Martin Luther said, "This fool Copernicus wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture in Joshua 10:13 tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

John Calvin quoted Psalm 93 in his attack on Copernicus. "The earth also is established. It cannot be moved." Calvin added, "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?"

Melancthon, one of Luther's closest allies, used Ecclesiastes 1:4-5 to condemn Copernicus. "The sun also rises, and the sun goes down and hurries to the place from which it came." Then he added these dangerous words: "It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to obey it." In other words, believe what the Bible says -- even if science disproves it.

Because Christians refused to let their understanding of God's Word be informed by science, Copernicus was condemned and Galileo was declared a heretic and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. In 1992, 359 years later, Pope John Paul II finally admitted the church had been wrong to ignore science and to interpret the Bible literally.

The Pope said something we must never forget: "Recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past." Unfortunately, the apology came too late to relieve Galileo of his suffering. What if the biblical scholars of Galileo's day had said to Galileo, "We don't agree with your Copernican theories, but we love and trust you. As long as you love God and seek God's will in your life, you are welcome here."

Imagine the suffering that could be avoided if the church could say this to their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children: "We don't understand your views about sexual orientation, but we love and trust you. As long as you love God and seek God's will in your life, you are welcome here."  Instead, well-intentioned Christian are driving their own children away from the church, using Scripture passages that may not even pertain to sexual orientation as we understand it.

MY EIGHTH PREMISE:
Whatever some people believe the Bible says about homosexuality, they must not use that belief to deny homosexuals their basic civil rights. To discriminate against sexual or gender minorities is unjust and un-American.

Please consider one last thing. I love the Bible. I read God's Word in it and hear God's Word through it. But the United States is not a nation governed by the Bible. Our nation is governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our laws were created to protect an individual's right to disagree. If the Bible (or someone's view of the Bible) replaces the Constitution as the law of the land, we undermine the great foundation upon which this country was built.

When I was a guest on a talk show in Seattle, I saw what might happen to me and to millions like me if a genuine literalist gained political power over this country. The other guest on the show was an independent Presbyterian pastor. When I told him that I was gay, he said without hesitation, "Then you should be killed." A Christian brother sentenced me to death, guided only by his literal understanding of Leviticus 20:13.

I asked him, "Who should do the killing, you church folk?" He answered, "No, that's the civil authorities' job. That's why we need to elect more good men of God into government." I sat there in stunned silence, until he added, "I know it must be hard for you to hear it, Dr. White -- but God said it first and it's our job to obey."

I hope we can agree that all of us must stand together against those who would replace the Constitution with biblical law. That's why, when I lecture on a university campus, I carry a Bible in one pocket and a Constitution in the other.

Can we support full civil rights for all... even if we disagree?  In this last premise, I'm asking you who disagree with my stand on homosexuality to support my stand on full civil rights for all people, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

I hope you'll agree that we are family, all sisters and brothers of the same heavenly parent. We may be different, but we can still live together in peace.
Thanks for reading this pamphlet. I'm grateful. If you are interested in learning more, I've listed a few resources on the next few pages. You can also find resources online at our Web page, www.soulforce.org.
 
 

Excerpts from "What the Bible Says About Homosexuality"

Again, I got this in class. This is a good enough article as far presenting both sides of the argument. I suppose I don't have to tell all you loyal fans where I stand, but it was also interesting for me to see what the "other side" had to say. With the recent debate on homosexuality and the Bible's alleged stand against it, I thought those who wanted to know the other side of things would also like to read this. It's quite long, but if you have time and are interested in the topic, jump right in.

You can read the full text in Religious Tolerance.

***

(Note: the following is heavily abridged; visit the site for more information.)

How religious conservatives and liberals interpret the Bible:
Conservative and liberal Christians interpret the Bible in very different ways. This leads to two distinct and contradictory sets of beliefs within Christianity on just about every conceivable topic. Homosexuality is no exception.

Rigidity of beliefs:
We have exchanged Emails with hundreds of visitors to this web site about the Bible and homosexuality. Most fall into one of two groups:

• Religious liberals promote homosexual ordinations, same-sex marriage, civil union ceremonies in the church, equal protection under hate-crime legislation, protection against discrimination in employment, etc. as fundamental human rights issues.

• Religious conservatives feel that the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is always a serious sin. Allowing sexually active gays and lesbians to be ordained, or to have their committed relationships recognized by the church would involve a drastic and unacceptable lowering of church standards. The church would be condoning sin. They also oppose including sexual orientation in hate-crime and anti-discrimination legislation.

We have been unable to change the beliefs or actions of any of these hundreds of people on even one point related to homosexuality. Their views appear to be fixed. It is doubtful that much progress towards compromise on homosexual rights can be made by means of dialogue. We don't expect that the attached essays will change the beliefs of many visitors to this web site. However, the essays may help people understand opinions that are not their own.

• Religious liberals have often interpreted other passages as condemning men who sexually abuse boys, men who engage in homosexual ritual sex in Pagan temples, men intent on raping other men, etc. They view the Bible as being silent on sexual behavior within a consensual, monogamous committed homosexual relationship.

          For example, they might identify the sin of the men of Sodom as explained in Genesis           19 as attempting to rape strangers. Alternatively, they might quote other biblical                     passages as proof that the main sin of that city was their uncharitable behavior towards           strangers, and their uncaring conduct towards the poor, the widows, and needy.

• Religious conservatives often interpret all of the Biblical passages that touch on same-sex activity as condemning homosexuality in all its forms.

For example, they would probably identify the sin of the men of Sodom to be homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is seen as one of many manifestations of mankind's sinful nature which are a direct result of Adam and Eve's activities in the Garden of Eden. The story in Genesis is interpreted by conservative Christians as describing the fall of humanity.

Basic approach to analyzing the Bible:

The Bible refers to specific homosexual behaviors in a few passages. All references are negative.  Before considering what the Bible might say about homosexuality in today's society, one must figure out what the authors of the Bible meant when they wrote their passages about homosexuality. In order to do this, one must make a fundamental decision -- whether to:

• Accept the teachings of one's faith group. If you do so, and if you follow a conservative denomination then you will probably be taught that homosexual behavior is chosen, changeable abnormal, unnatural, and condemned by God. It is something that a person does. If you follow a liberal faith group, you may well accept homosexuality as an alternative, normal, natural unchangeable sexual orientation for a minority of humans which is accepted by God. It is something that a person is.

• Study passages from your favorite English version of the Bible, which is filtered by the theological beliefs and homophobia (if any) of the translators. If so, then you will find many passages in the Bible which condemn certain forms of homosexual behavior

• Follow the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek writings and attempt to understand precisely what the writers taught. If so, then you will find that these same passages condemn specific homosexual activities (rape, prostitution, etc.) But the Bible appears to be silent about same-sex, committed, monogamous relationships.

• There is no term that means homosexual orientation in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts of the Bible.  The authors of the Bible did not understand sexual orientation and thus did not write about it. Biblical authors had little or no understanding of same-sex committed relationships. Rather, they assumed that everyone was heterosexual, but that some heterosexuals engaged in sex with persons of the same gender. Thus, when you see one of these words in an English translation of the Bible, it is important to dig deeper and find what the original Hebrew or Greek text really means.

Society in biblical times:
In Biblical times, same-gender sexual interactions could take many forms. Some were:

• Kings of conquered tribes were sometimes anally raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation. Such rape was also a way of humiliating visitors and strangers. These were acts of power and domination and had nothing in common with consensual sex by gays and lesbians.

• In biblical times, sex was regarded as an activity engaged in by a dominant person and a submissive person. For a man to play the role of a submissive partner would be a reversal of roles, and unacceptable.

• It was common within the Roman Empire for male adults to keep boy prostitutes for the purpose of sexual activity. The boys were often slaves. In modern times, this is considered extreme child abuse, a criminal offense.

• It is reasonable to assume that many loving gay and lesbian relationships existed in Biblical times. Rabbi Gershon Caudill wrote: "Like all indigenous peoples, the Jews were not overly concerned about male homosexuality, where two men lived together in a monogamous, sexual relationship. As a rule, it did not get any notice....The Talmud does not record a single instance of a person being brought before the Sanhedrin on the charge of homosexual activity."

People's beliefs regarding the Bible:

• Generally speaking, Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christians believe that the Bible, as originally written, is inerrant (infallible; free of errors) and that God prevented the authors from making even a single mistake.  Every verse is useful in their understanding of God's intentions.  One should initially attempt to interpret each passage according to its literal meaning.  Many modern translations are reliable, particularly the New International Version (NIV) and King James Version (KJV).

• More liberal Christians tend to look upon the Bible as containing many translation errors, whose verses were not inspired by God, but were influenced by ancient pre-scientific culture. Passages often relate to customs of a long-past era that are unethical when compared to today's secular and religious systems of morality. Examples are verses which accept and regulate slavery, require widows to marry their brother-in-law, requiring victims of rape to marry their rapist, or condone child disciplinary practices.  Passages which might be interpreted as condemning homosexuality might also be not applicable today.

Each Bible translation reflects the world view, beliefs and mind sets of its translators. Many, if not most, versions of the Bible are funded by religious organizations and employ translators who all follow a specific theological belief system. Their personal biases distort their work. There is an additional complexity facing translators: today's society is very different from that of Biblical times. It is sometimes difficult to find a current English word that closely matches a Hebrew or Greek term.

A brief description of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)
Allegedly anti-gay "clobber" passages in the Bible

Genesis 1: Be fruitful and multiply....

Genesis 1:27 & 28: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, ..." King James Version.

• A common religiously conservative interpretation: Moses recorded God as saying that he created Adam and Eve in his own image as "male and female." Having created them capable of procreation, God blessed them and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. There is obviously a limit to the number of children that Eve could give birth to. One might safely assume that God's instruction to Adam and Eve were also binding to their children, grandchildren, even down to the present generation. Thus, God intended each human to pair up with a member of the opposite sex, and to procreate. There is no room in God's plan for same-sex marriage.

• A common religiously liberal interpretation: The creation stories in Genesis do not describe actual events and commands; they were copied and adapted from Babylonian myths by an unknown ancient Hebrew priest. The injunction to be fruitful and multiply may have had some validity in biblical times when the ancient Hebrews were continually under attack by neighboring tribes. However, today's world is overpopulated and is placing major strains on the environment. The command can hardly apply today.  Furthermore, throughout most of its history, the Christian church has rejected this passage; it has valued celibacy as a higher calling than marriage.
  

God stated in Genesis 2:18: "It is not good for the man to be alone." For a homosexual individual, the only suitable companion is a person of the same gender. To say that gays and lesbians should not form committed relationships is to say that it is good for them to remain alone. This is a direct contradiction of God's statement; it implies that God is a liar.

Genesis 2:23-24: About marriage: "The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh'...For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh."

• Conservative Christians:  God created Adam and Eve to be heterosexual, expecting them to be fertile and to populate the world with humans. During the sexual act, their bodies unite, and symbolically rejoin as "one flesh." That is God's plan: for people of opposite genders to marry, raise children and have dominion over all the earth. Homosexual behavior is apart from God's plan, an attempt to distort and pervert what God intended from the beginning. If gays and lesbians cannot change (or do not wish to change) their sexual addiction, they must remain celibate in order to fit into God's planned intent for humanity.

• Liberal Christians: The first creation story in the Bible is seen in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3. It describes that God's stated plan was for humanity to "Be fruitful and increase in number." (NIV, Genesis 1:28). The second creation story appears in Genesis 2:4 to 2:25. It states specifically that a man will unite with his wife. (NIV, Genesis 2:24).

One must interpret these sayings carefully. They obviously do not apply to all people. For example, if...

A significant portion of the population is sterile and thus cannot be fruitful and multiply.  If some people, for any number of reasons, remain celibate throughout life and never marry or have children.  If some women marry when they are beyond child-bearing age and are unable to conceive and give birth.  If some people carry serious genetic defects and choose to not conceive in order to avoid creating a child who would have disastrous health problems.  Gays or lesbians are, by definition, not attracted to members of the opposite gender, and thus are most unlikely to be able to form heterosexual relationships of one man, one woman.  The Genesis texts can thus refer only to a majority of individuals, not to everyone. It is a general plan for society, but not universally applicable to all.

Genesis 19: The story of Sodom and Gomorra:

This passage states that all of the people from the city of Sodom gathered around Lot's house and demanded that he send out two visiting angels so that the townspeople might "know" the angels. The word "know" probably implies that they wanted to have sex with the strangers. God later destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of the behavior of the people of Sodom -- the Sodomites.

• A common conservative interpretation: Moses recorded God as destroying the city. R. Albert Mohler said: "The Genesis passage is very clear, that the sin of Sodom that brought on the destruction of the city was indeed linked to homosexuality." 1 This is a popular passage often quoted in conservative Churches because it so clearly condemns homosexual behavior.

• A common liberal interpretation: The sin of the men of Sodom was to humiliate their visitors by engaging in "an act of sexual degradation and male rape...These are acts of violence that are committed by parties seeking to show their hatred for those they are degrading. It is not an act of love or of caring" 2 The sin of Sodom was the intent to commit of mass rape. Same-sex rape is unrelated to homosexuality just as opposite-sex rape is unrelated to heterosexuality. Rape is a crime of power and control. Other biblical passages that mention Sodom clearly indicate that Sodom was punished for being unkind to its poor, widows, orphans, and strangers.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: The abomination

Leviticus 18:22 in the King James Version states: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 20:13 is similar, except that it adds the death penalty as punishment.  Although the original Hebrew clearly refers to male-male sexual activity, both the Living Bible and New Living Translation refer to a prohibition of "homosexuality." This would include sex between two women -- a behavior not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.

• A common conservative interpretation: These verses clearly condemn sexual activity between two males. As such, they are consistent with other passages discussed in this essay. No exception is given for consensual sex between two men or for sex within a loving same-sex relationship. All are an abomination to God.

• A common liberal interpretation: The Hebrew word "to'ebah" appears in both passages and is generally translated as "abomination." Some religious liberals interpret these passages as referring only to male Jews who engaged in same-sex behavior in Pagan temples. The term would better be translated as "ritually improper" or "involving foreign religious cult practice." Elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, the same word is used to ban wearing of clothing made up from two materials (like cotton-polyester in today's world), or having a tattoo, eating shrimp, eating pork, seeding lawns with a mixture of grass types, etc. None of the passages invoking "T'ebah" are valid for non-Jews today.

Rev. Jill Nelson commented that the passage "... is grounded in the old Jewish understanding that women are less worthy than men. For a man to have sex with another man 'as with a woman' insults the other man, because women are to be treated as property." 1

Deuteronomy 23:17, etc: Sodomites and shrine prostitutes

Deuteronomy 23:17 in the King James Version states: "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." There are similar passages in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12 & 22:46 and 2 Kings 23:7.

• A common conservative interpretation: Many Evangelicals prefer the KJV to the NIV translation of this verse. It condemns all male homosexual activity, and is thus applicable to all male gays today, whether they are engaged in casual sex or in a monogamous, consensual, committed relationship.

• A common liberal interpretation: The Hebrew word "quadesh" is translated in the King James Version here as "sodomite." Other Bible translations use the term "cult prostitute" or "shrine prostitute."   "Qadesh" literally "means 'holy one' and is here used to refer to a man who engages in ritual prostitution" in a Pagan temple. 2 Among Pagan religions in the Middle East, worship often involved ritual sex in the temple, "often with a sacred prostitute who was like a priest or priestess. This sacred sexual activity was believed to encourage the god(s) to bestow fertility on the earth and its creatures." Male shrine prostitutes would have sex with females; female prostitutes with males.

Conclusions:

• A common conservative conclusion: God's word repeatedly upholds one-man, one-women marriage as God's intent for relationships. It also repeatedly condemns same-sex behavior between men and perhaps between women.

• A common liberal conclusion: Genesis does mention the pairing off of one man and one woman into a marriage-like relationship. But this is only one of many possible marital or family relationships. There are a total of eight types mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures. Genesis 19 definitely condemns rape. But this is unrelated to consensual same-sex sexual behavior. The phrases in Leviticus only apply to Jews engaging in same-sex activity in Pagan temples. The references to sodomites in Deuteronomy etc. is a clear error in translation. Again it refers to ritual sex in Pagan temples.

There is nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures that condemns same-sex committed relationships or same-sex marriage.

With the almost complete absence of dialogue between religious conservatives and others on these topics, the massive gulf over homosexuality and the Bible -- and about the morality of same-sex sexual behavior -- will probably not be resolved in the foreseeable future. 

How Not to Talk To or About Gay and Lesbian People (Unless You Want to Offend)

I got this in class, just thought I'd share it with you guys. What an eye-opener! I realized I said some of these things before just because I didn't know any better! Hopefully, this way, I can make amends.

(Aside: Could someone verify #8 as far as Judaism is concerned? I'm afraid my friends who practice Judaism aren't very devout - which is to say, they hardly practice it all.)

***

No. 1: “You don’t look gay.”
Although this is a common response, it’s insensitive and plays into stereotypes.   (What does “straight” look like?)

No. 2: “I suspected you were gay.” 
This may be intended as genuine interest and concern, but be careful.

No. 3: "I don’t care what people do in their personal lives; I just wish they wouldn’t flaunt it.”
These speakers probably have no problem with heterosexuals talking about their spouses, or displaying family pictures, or showing tasteful affection for each other.  

No. 4: "I just don’t approve of homosexuality.”
As someone once said, that’s like saying you don’t approve of the Pacific Ocean.

No. 5:  References to “lifestyle”
Jet-setters may have lifestyles, but gay people (and straight people) have lives.  Calling anyone’s life a “style” is demeaning. 

No. 6:  “I wonder who’s the man and who’s the woman.”
These concepts are outmoded and inaccurate in all sexual orientations.  Most couples, straight and gay, have gone beyond playing roles solely based on their anatomy.      

No. 7: "I can tell if people are gay.  I can just tell.”
What this really says is that the speaker may be able to identify stereotypical gay people.  In other words, people who think they can “tell” have no special skill.  The vast majority of gay people are indistinguishable from everyone else and, in fact, may not recognize each other. 

No. 8: "I believe we should love the sinner but hate the sin.”
There are a number of religions for whom being gay is a neutral issue, including Judaism and several mainstream Christian religions. But more to the point, what it says is that you love someone as a person while also hating everything that makes that person who he or she is.  (If you say this meaning to be kind, just know that it won’t be heard that way.)


(Adapted from Diversity, Inc., 2007)

Point of Order

I am writing this here because I don't want this comment to get drowned by the myriad of other comments that have been filling up Rachelle's blog. She said so herself, she was ready to take the consequences of sharing her less-than-popular views to the world. Hey, I totally dig that. Goodness knows I've been the bearer of crappy views myself.

I just want to pause and reflect, though, on how this is shaping up to be. There have been some very personal and rude attacks on her looks, her family, and goodness knows what else. Malu Fernandez anyone?

I suppose I can't totally fault the others for lashing out in pure infantile anger (those are the fantastic kinds in which to indulge, I might add...) I do so in the confines of my own personal space. Close friends and family know that I have turned anger-lashing into a veritable art form. (Seriously. Adjectives are God's gift to angry people.) But I always force myself to tread more carefully when it comes to cyberspace. I do this not because I entertain narcissistic notions that the world waits with bated breath for every entry I write here, but because I feel as if I have a responsibility towards the lilliputian portion of the internet audience who do come to my little space.

With that said, Rachelle ought to have been more responsible with her words. What she posed as scientific research was just one fallacious statement after another, and easily disprovable. For example: Not all homosexuals are sodomites. In fact, a good portion of heterosexuals practice sodomy. Not all serial killers are homosexuals. Hitler was straight as straight can be. (I think. We weren't close. But Hollywood has not told me otherwise...)

On one level, her entry annoys me because it wasn't intelligent enough to pose itself as a strong argument against homosexuality. On another, deeper, more personal, and more existential level, her entry shook me to the core, because she condemned some of the people I love the most to eternal damnation. I don't know any murderers personally, but I have trouble flat-out condemning them to hell. I'd like child pornographers to go there, but I know very well that it's not up to me. I've already said my piece about that though, and I would hate to be redundant (over and over, again and again, ad infinitum, so on and so forth...)

She is a person whose views are entirely different from mine, and her theology is not one that I share. She and I will never ever be friends (everrrrr). The only place I can imagine being with her is on the set of Jerry Springer (wait, the film in the morning, right? Make that in one of those late-night debate shows.)

Here it comes, though. The ubiquitous "but"...

She is but one person. Her views are her own. By insulting her looks, her family, her lifestyle, we become just like her. There is a certain justice in unleashing the same kind of vitriol-fueled insults on her, but really, by doing so, have we not actually contributed to her unfounded arguments against (and here comes the shudder whenever I hear the term...) "homos" (ick-ick-ick, shudder-shudder.) Yes, what she said was hurtful. Yes, you were only acting out of anger. I get that! I was hurt and angry, too. But go rant in front of your friends and family. Don't do it on cyberspace. This goes beyond Rachelle. This is symptomatic of something so much bigger. This is sooooo not about her. Our comments are helping shape our future! Do you really want to go down in history as the one who talked smack to the person who didn't know any better anyway? You do all realize that you're becoming just as bad as she is, right?

The mob mentality is a scary-scary-scary thing to watch as it unfolds.

Take the higher road. Stop bashing Rachelle. Disagree with her, but stop attacking her below the belt. That's just mean.

Now if you excuse me, this soap box is pretty high and I'm only 5 feet tall. I'd like to get off now. Don't anybody trip on that on your way out.