Why Here When You Could Be There?
There was a lot of good stuff to be found in the blogosphere today. In case you missed any of this, here's my pointers.
#1) Alastair gives us more to think about regarding Westminster Shorter Catechism Question 4 as a symptom of a much larger problem
#2) Jeff Steel reminds us that we should be praying for the unity of all Christian people
O GOD, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace; Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatsoever else may hinder us from GODLY Union and Concord: that, as there is but one Body, and one Spirit, and one Hope of our Calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may henceforth be all of one heart, and of one soul, united in one holy bond of Truth and Peace, of Faith and Charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen
#3) Backwards City quotes an Harper's essay on 'The Christian Paradox.' This is the situation that we are in. Forgive me for simply up and stealing the whole quote and placing it here:
Only 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation’s educational decline, but it probably doesn’t matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up.
...
And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior. That paradox—more important, perhaps, than the much touted ability of French women to stay thin on a diet of chocolate and cheese—illuminates the hollow at the core of our boastful, careening culture.
#4) Crooks and Liars posted a clip of Rick Santorum on The Daily Show. People are criticizing Stewart for going soft on Santorum, but I think that Santorum should be criticized for being too wishy-washy. Santorum, it seems to me (and I don't know much about the man), is part of the natural law crowd. Instead of presenting God's Law, Santorum argues for "what's best for society" yet I'm not sure if he is able to offer compelling reasons why something is best for society.
Far instance, Santorum concedes to Stewart that there can be "virtuous homosexuals." I just can't understand this, unqualified as it is. Would he say that there are virtuous adulterers, virtuous rapists, virtuous thiefs, virtuous murderers, etc? When someone defines oneself and labels oneself as one engaged in a sin, then revels in it and defends it absolutely; is this what Santorum means by virtuous?
Sorry, that's not my major complaint, just a tangent I probably shouldn't have gotten started on.
Anyhow, I enjoyed the interchange between the two and thought that it was rather civil. I'm a big fan of The Daily Show and I'd be watching it often if we had cable television. For now, I have to settle for internet scraps.
#5) Paul Duggan has been posting a very excellent, very readable defense of the power of paper, (sacramental efficacy)first here, and then here.
#6) This one probably shouldn't count since it's almost a week old, but Uncommon Folk put up a song from the new Wooden Wand album. I heard it once and immediately played it at least a half a dozen more times. It's one of those. I'm not sure if I'll order the CD now or wait for the vinyl. Oh, the trials I face!
There was a lot of good stuff to be found in the blogosphere today. In case you missed any of this, here's my pointers.
#1) Alastair gives us more to think about regarding Westminster Shorter Catechism Question 4 as a symptom of a much larger problem
#2) Jeff Steel reminds us that we should be praying for the unity of all Christian people
O GOD, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace; Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatsoever else may hinder us from GODLY Union and Concord: that, as there is but one Body, and one Spirit, and one Hope of our Calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may henceforth be all of one heart, and of one soul, united in one holy bond of Truth and Peace, of Faith and Charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen
#3) Backwards City quotes an Harper's essay on 'The Christian Paradox.' This is the situation that we are in. Forgive me for simply up and stealing the whole quote and placing it here:
Only 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation’s educational decline, but it probably doesn’t matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up.
...
And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior. That paradox—more important, perhaps, than the much touted ability of French women to stay thin on a diet of chocolate and cheese—illuminates the hollow at the core of our boastful, careening culture.
#4) Crooks and Liars posted a clip of Rick Santorum on The Daily Show. People are criticizing Stewart for going soft on Santorum, but I think that Santorum should be criticized for being too wishy-washy. Santorum, it seems to me (and I don't know much about the man), is part of the natural law crowd. Instead of presenting God's Law, Santorum argues for "what's best for society" yet I'm not sure if he is able to offer compelling reasons why something is best for society.
Far instance, Santorum concedes to Stewart that there can be "virtuous homosexuals." I just can't understand this, unqualified as it is. Would he say that there are virtuous adulterers, virtuous rapists, virtuous thiefs, virtuous murderers, etc? When someone defines oneself and labels oneself as one engaged in a sin, then revels in it and defends it absolutely; is this what Santorum means by virtuous?
Sorry, that's not my major complaint, just a tangent I probably shouldn't have gotten started on.
Anyhow, I enjoyed the interchange between the two and thought that it was rather civil. I'm a big fan of The Daily Show and I'd be watching it often if we had cable television. For now, I have to settle for internet scraps.
#5) Paul Duggan has been posting a very excellent, very readable defense of the power of paper, (sacramental efficacy)first here, and then here.
#6) This one probably shouldn't count since it's almost a week old, but Uncommon Folk put up a song from the new Wooden Wand album. I heard it once and immediately played it at least a half a dozen more times. It's one of those. I'm not sure if I'll order the CD now or wait for the vinyl. Oh, the trials I face!
posted by trawlerman at 10:00 PM
17 Comments:
virtuous adulterers: Thomas Jefferson. Martin Luther King, Jr.
virtuous thieves: Robin Hood.
Point being, one can have moral failings and still have some virtues in other areas as well.
As to what is or is not a sin - well, that's another issue.
I think you're right that Santorum is an advocate of natural law.
http://www.wf-f.org/Santorum-Christendom.html
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/print2005/senatorsantorumint_jun05.html
I'm guessing that's a Thomist stance (since he's Catholic), but I could be wrong; I'm still new at this Christian theology stuff.
Well now, go to dictionary.com for virtue and we get:
1.
a. Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness.
b. An example or kind of moral excellence: the virtue of patience.
2. Chastity, especially in a woman.
3. A particularly efficacious, good, or beneficial quality; advantage: a plan with the virtue of being practical.
4. Effective force or power: believed in the virtue of prayer.
5. virtues Christianity. The fifth of the nine orders of angels in medieval angelology.
6. Obsolete. Manly courage; valor.
and you get:
So, I would say your statement of "virtuous adulterers" is particular contradictory based on meaning 2.
Also, you say, "Point being, one can have moral failings and still have some virtues in other areas as well" But I would say that we need to be careful in our use of words. A person may be a murder, thief, and liar--but have the virtue of patience. Does that make the said person virtuous?
Clearly under the defintion of 1 (a) of virtue: "Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness" this person who is a murder thief, and liar, is not virtuous even though he may be patient. If Hitler were generous would that have made him virtuous?
So, does a person have a virtue or are they virtuous? Two different things. (A distinction, I think, that someone can't get.)
Of course, as Jesus says, no one is good except God (Mark 10:18) so on the most stringent measurement the only one virtuous is God.
If we lower the bar so that virtuous is no longer such a high standard it all becomes rather wishy-washy, doesn't it? If moral excellence, righteousness, and goodness (those things which only God fully is) are not the measure of virtuousness, then doesn't it become rather self-justifying? For example I have moral failings, but I say they aren't a big deal so I'm virtuous. However, the moral failings of the guy down the street are a big deal so he isn't virtuous. We lower the standards so that we can become virtuous when in truth the standard of total virtue is too high for us to meet.
If an objective standard of virtue isn't being used, it will vary with the society, and person. And, both society and individuals will try to set a standard of virtue that they feel able to meet. (Who wants to condemn themselves?)
I guess I would say we reveal more about ourselves then about the true nature of virtue when we answer this type of question.
I lost a great deal of respect for Santorum when he supported Arlen Spector against Pro-Life Pat Toomey in the recent primary. Spector barely won, and would have likely lost if Santorum had supported Toomey. Can you spell "SELLOUT"?
I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that Hitler liked to buy random children ice cream on Sundays. It's too bad that his generosity didn't extend to his actions in the political realm, which affected a lot more people. It kind of reminds me of this essay about the defense of genocides in Ender's Game.
I think you've pointed out a serious flaw in virtue ethics, which is the difficulty of clearly and reliably evaluating different virtues against each other, without reference to some other method of determining moral value. I think the value of virtues may be more instrumental than anything - that virtuous people tend to do good in the world, and that's why we should encourage and cultivate virtue. With this in mind, we are in a better position to decide the relative values of different virtues.
It just occurred to me that murder and theft are not vices, strictly speaking, but crimes or sins - they are not character flaws that stand in opposition to virtues. The closest equivalents would be, I suppose, wrath and avarice. And with this understanding, it seems less absurd that someone could be quick to anger, but still be generous or courageous. And more to the original point, someone who fails to be chaste can still be wise and benevolent. And if we apply the instrumental understanding of virtue to determine which is more valuable, then it seems to me that wisdom and benevolence (since they more directly and consistently lead people to do good in the world) easily come out ahead.
Thus, the vice of lust (which, if homosexuals qua homosexuals could be said to be indulgent in any vice, would be the one) can be outweighed by wisdom, benevolence, and probably other virtues as well.
skoosh,
I read your post on geocentrism. Sungenis has lost a great deal of respect and goodwill he had built by his earlier writings on mainstream Catholic apologetics (sola scriptura, the eucharist, sola fide) by running around trying to make geocentrism a central tenant of the faith. It's pretty sad, I don't think he fully shook his Fundamentalist mindset when he entered the Church.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting to read about that.
>>>"And if we apply the instrumental understanding of virtue to determine which is more valuable, then it seems to me that wisdom and benevolence (since they more directly and consistently lead people to do good in the world) easily come out ahead.
Thus, the vice of lust (which, if homosexuals qua homosexuals could be said to be indulgent in any vice, would be the one) can be outweighed by wisdom, benevolence, and probably other virtues as well."
Among the vast mass of humanity, how many are truly virtuous? I would guess a rather small minority. As most of us to greater or lesser degrees practice virtue and vice, how should we judge ourselves? If wisdom (worth 8.875) added to benevolence (worth 7.225) subtracting a bit of lust
(worth -9.555) we come out with a positive on the side of virtue are we then virtuous? I don't think you're restricting yourself to just that point, but it seems to fall a bit short in the end.
To focus on vices for a moment.
Perhaps we should contrast how to different people may view vice. One may embrace it, cherish it, promote it, revel within it, and even call it a virtue. Another may see it as a vice, struggle with it, fall again and again yet always fight against it, repent of it, slowly conquer and subdue it, until that vice is no longer present, and virtue is built up in the process.
Would you consider the former as equally virtuous as the latter, although both may be in practice engaging in equal amounts of virtue and vice?
Add to the above the complicating factor of what constitutes a virtue or a vice (who decides what is a virtue or a vice, each individual?) There has to be a point of reference. I believe
that that point of reference is the God-Man Jesus Christ. As the late John Paul II stated in the first sentence of his first encyclical "THE REDEEMER OF MAN, Jesus Christ, is the centre of the universe and of history".
Well, if you mean that each individual would separately and independently develop a list of virtues and vices, then I'd have to disagree. Ethics outside of a social context is meaningless. For a single person alone on a desert island, there is no way to be moral or immoral. Courage, wisdom, temperance, and so on in that person will only benefit herelf and no one else, and therefore will be no more "virtuous" - i.e. have any more of a moral dimension - than long arms or excellent vision. So morality requires society. It therefore follows that morality emerges from society, and we gain a sense of morality through collaborative moral discourse, and not through the work of isolated individuals (though individual discernment does play a role). An individual deciding ethical issues in isolation, without considering the points of view of the rest of the world, is more likely to err than many people figuring things out together, since the latter can correct each other's mistakes and self-indulgent excesses.
I didn't really want to go here, but since you bring it up: I don't believe that morality, properly understood, can be legislated by an arbitrary authority, no matter who the authority is or how powerful it may be. See the Euthyphro dilemma for details. An arbitrary point of reference is no better than no point of reference. Whether one says that an act is moral because Bob says it is, or because King Bob says it is, or because the King of Kings says it is, it is still a definition of morality that fails to avoid arbitrariness. It undermines the whole idea of moral principle, since moral injunctions that issue from an arbitrary authority are not founded on any principles at all, and could change at any time on the whim of that authority. That's the difference between morality and law - the latter issues from a sovereign, and the former emerges from the nature of society.
(In passing, the claim that "God is good," if "good" is defined to be "whatever God says it is", also becomes an empty tautology. So there is a theological reason for theists to further investigate the nature of goodness, beyond the precepts of divine law.)
As far as moral calculation goes, in practice it is pretty near impossible to come up with methods that everyone can agree on. However, I just wanted to demonstrate that, in theory, someone with minor vices could still be considered virtuous. If by "truly virtuous" you mean perfectly virtuous, then very few, if any, people could be considered so. But if we want to get into meaningful arguments about the relative virtuosity of homosexual people, then we need a less strict working definition of "virtuous", like "reasonably virtuous", or "virtuous enough" - else our only conclusion will be that homosexuals are imperfect human beings, just like everybody else, which (though it may be true) doesn't make for a very interesting discussion.
In your third and fourth paragraphs, you seem to be switching between the idea of virtue and vice as character traits or emotional tendencies, versus acts having moral value. I see them as belonging to the former; the latter are covered by terms like "good deeds" and "sin". If the sum of their acts carry equal moral weight, then the latter definition would moot the question anyway. As far as Santorum's original contention that "there are some virtuous homosexuals," he could have been referring simply to those homosexual people who struggle with their sexual desires, and not necessarily those who march in Pride Parades. In which case, his contention still holds in the face of the "repentant versus unrepentant" argument.
And this is all before we even get to the question of whether homosexuality is a vice in and of itself.
Thanks for your kind words about the geocentrism post. It took a couple of days of online research, so I'm glad you appreciated it. I thought it was a good opportunity to talk about the nature of scientific truth and epistemology, and their philosophical limitations in terms of yielding absolute certainty.
I am pretty weak at philosophy, but here goes.
>>>"since moral injunctions that issue from an arbitrary authority are not founded on any principles at all, and could change at any time on the whim of that authority."
St. Thomas Aquinus argues that because good is an essential part of God's nature, therefore the good he commands is good as it is in comformity with and not opposed to his nature. This demanded good will not change over time "on a whim" if the nature of God is in fact immutible (as many theists propose).
Regarding the Euthyphro dilemma I would refer you to this you can tell me what you think. It admittidly well over my head. http://www.theism.net/article/29
>>>"... an individual is more likely to err than many people figuring things out together, since the latter can correct each other's mistakes and self-indulgent excesses."
Why should this follow? Can not the majority (or minority, depending on how you define society) of any given mass of people just as easily make mistakes
and promote self-indulgent excesses on the rest of that society?
What if two different societies (separated by time or space) disagree on a certain moral issue, are both moral stances that contradict one another both true at the same time?
Henri de Lubac once stated "It is not true as it is sometimes said, that man can not organize the world without God. What is true is that, without God, he can only organize it against man." Societies may be able to come up with "morals", but what will keep these "morals" from then being used against fellow man in a fit of self-mutilation.
A purely secular society without a compelling argument for a truth that REQUIRES us to be tolerant of those who have different beliefs or understandings than us can only lead to skepticism and relativism, neither of which are a good foundation on which to build a society.
I don't believe any group of people within any given society claiming authority on morals with the final frame of reference for their proposed moral code being their own little discussions amongst their group constitutes a "compelling argument for truth", and subsiquently leaves itself wide open to the abuse of others who do not share those views.
I would fear some Christian Fundamentalists coming into power, but I would fear secular Fundamentalists even greater (the latter being a much more likely scenario in our age.)
I'm rambling now.
These comments lifted from another blog discussion (last post on http://catholica.pontifications.netSomewhat related.
"But the viability as well as the moral legitimacy of such a regime depends on what Jefferson cited in the Declaration of Independence: the “self-evident truths” that include the endowment “by the Creator” of certain “unalienable rights.” That point is crucial. If such rights do not come from God but from human consensus, built on whatever foundation, then they are not unalienable: they can be granted or withheld at the pleasure of human beings."
---Michael Liccione
“Inalienable rights? I’ve never met a right I couldn’t alienate.”
---Stanley Hauerwas
Pete,
Have you read any Hauerwas? He's well worth the time.
You can find a pretty decent chunk of material online here
I read selections from the Hauerwas Reader a while back and many of his essays have been helpful to me in my current line of employment, including this one: Eliminating People Who Suffer
Besides the Hauerwas quote, I was intrigued by what you wrote:
"Why should this follow? Can not the majority (or minority, depending on how you define society) of any given mass of people just as easily make mistakes
and promote self-indulgent excesses on the rest of that society?"
Were you aware that this is one of the standard Protestant critiques of the infallibility of Church councils? If individual bishops are fallible, then there is no reason to believe that the gathered wisdom of many fallible men is somehow infallible, no matter how many there are. I know the arguments on both sides of this debate, and I'm not willing to go into it at length here, but I just thought I'd point it out.
Skoosh,
I've been silent during this little interchange even though I know that my words were the chief instigation of all of these other words. I'm not interested in joining the fray and was originally hesitant to write what I did for fear of having to write more than I wanted to.
Anyhow, I just wanted to clarify here that my main concern isn't quite with issues of "vice" versus "virtue" (the pediatrician next to my work site, the last time he saw me smoking he said "my advice, work on your vice." To him, smoking was a vice, yet I know of many great historical Christian saints that used tobacco. ah, whatever). My main concern is with anyone that "defines oneself and labels oneself as one engaged in a sin, then revels in it and defends it absolutely." Would we sanction Murderer Parades down Elmwood Ave. in Buffalo where men that are guilty of gruesomely murdering others wave around the body parts of their victims? The Bible condemns homosexuality and the Bible condemns murder, both as sins deserving the civil penalty of death. That is another issue, but it is important to understand that my position is based on God's law. I have a serious problem with those that so completely identify themselves with something that God's law identifies as sin.
>>>... there is no reason to believe that the gathered wisdom of many fallible men is somehow infallible, no matter how many there are.
Off topic, and I won't belabor the point, but the Catholic Church of course does not claim that it is the "gathered wisdom of many fallible men" that makes a Council infallible. The Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches base their claim on a supernatural charism granted to the Church by the Holy Spirit in those instances, that would not otherwise be present in individual Bishops or Bishops gathered in a local council.
I know that you already know the above, but that is a huge distinction that needs to be noted, whether or not you disagree with the claim. Again a nice parallel to such a extra-ordinary supernatural gift given to fallible men that we both would agree on would be the inspiration of Scripture, which is a much greater gift than infallibility, as I have previously argued.
I haven't read any Hauerwas. Thanks for the link.
Lots to talk about. Let's start with our host's comment first. (Nice icon, by the way.)
There is quite a laundry list of acts punishable by death in Mosaic law; some of them seem atrocious to me (perjury, human sacrifice), others not so much (taking the name of the Lord in vain, working on the Sabbath). You may believe them all to be sins, but I suspect (though I don't know) that they do not all rise to the level of murder in your view. I'll let you in on a little secret: I personally have worked on the Sabbath - both Saturday and Sunday. I freely admit it, I feel unashamed about it, and I'd be happy to do it again. Now, am I on the same level as a serial killer? Am I as bad as a homosexual? Is it impossible for me to be considered virtuous?
It's unlikely we'll see a Sabbath-Breakers' Pride Parade go down Elmwood Avenue anytime soon, but we should note why that is so. Sabbath-breakers do not get beaten in the streets in North America. It's not against the law to work on Sundays (although until recently, liquor stores had to be closed on Sundays in New York State). There are no gangs of young men driving around looking to beat up and harass people they suspect of being Sabbath-breakers. It's exceedingly rare to hear teenagers dismissively say, "Oh, that's so Sabbath-breaky!" or, "Don't be such a Sabbath-breaker!" Sabbath-breakers are not generally shamed, beaten, or ostracized by their families. Historically, they had not been locked up in mental hospitals or forcibly electrocuted in order to "cure" them. They are not taught from birth to hate themselves for wanting to be industrious every day. So Sabbath-breakers don't feel a need to have a parade. They don't feel a need to assert their pride in themselves, or to form a Sabbath-breaker identity, forged in persecution. For gays and lesbians, it's a different story.
My point here is twofold:
1. Homosexuals rally around a homosexual identity in response to their stigmatization and persecution on account of being homosexual (both in terms of desire and action). Gay and lesbian people hold Pride Parades because so much of society has despised them, and not the other way around. It seems strange to then hold that against them as further proof of depravity.
2. Some people base their dislike of homosexuals on an appeal to Biblical law, but people who break other laws described in the Bible (divorce and remarriage, working on the Sabbath) are not nearly as reviled in contemporary society, even among the devout. So there seems to be something more at work here.
It's interesting how this parallels a couple of threads over at Randy McDonald's LJ. Let me just close by telling you a story: Once upon a time, I went off to college. My randomly assigned roommate was a fellow frosh, a young man from Kansas who was pursuing a career in musical theatre. Over Christmas vacation, he was attacked by a bunch of drunken kids from his high school, who chased him down and pinned him against a fence with their pickup truck, because they suspected he was gay. (That suspicion turned out to be correct, but they didn't know that, since he was still closeted to most people in his hometown). If they had known for sure that he was gay, would he have survived? I wonder. In any case, this issue is not an entirely abstract one to me. His name is Matt.
More on another day.
Well, John will have to answer for himself, but we aren't living under the Mosaic civil or dietary laws since the Incarnation of Christ. Death penalty for homosexuals? Personally I think it is absurd and opposed to the Gospel.
If you're speaking of the murder of Matthew Shepard, I find what happened to him to be vile and disgusting, and the murder of one of inestimable worth and who was loved by God as much as any of the rest of us. Homosexuals hardly have the monopoly being being hatefully murdered. See this utterly non-publicized murder for instance.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/793522/posts
In case anyone's still reading these comments, I thought I'd share Doug Wilson's recent post on the "execution of homosexuals."
This Credenda article is worth reading as well:
The Life and Death of Homo Pervertens
I think that Doug Wilson's most helpful insight is that not only will sin bring judgement, sin is judgement.
"This is why the apostle Paul describes homosexuality as the tail end of a dead-end flight from the living God. Because men and women do not want to honor God as God, and do not want to give Him thanks, God gives them up to the corrosive effects of their corrupt lusts (Rom. 1:26-28). This is why it is so important for us to recognize that while all sins will incur the judgment of God (Matt. 12:36), there is a category of sin which in itself constitutes a judgment from God. When the sin is committed, the judgment has already arrived."
-Wilson
Not only am I still (very occasionally) reading these comments, but I've got this thread bookmarked so that I don't completely forget about it. It's really late (took me a lot of time to find a decent online article on the Stachowicz murder that didn't have an ideological axe to grind), but let me just say real quick:
1. I wasn't actually referring to Matthew Shepard. My ex-roommate's name really was Matt. He did, however, know Teena Brandon (a.k.a. Brandon Teena), before she was raped and murdered by her "friends" after they discovered she was a transvestite. There was an article about her (when she was still alive) in some LGBT magazine that he showed me fall semester. They'd met once before her discovery/outing made her semi-famous in the LGBT community, and he showed me the article before she'd become super-famous for being raped and murdered and becoming the subject of an Academy Award-winning film. Just one example of my two degrees of separation from famous people. I can't make this stuff up.
2. I didn't explicitly mention murder as one of the ways that gays and lesbians have been persecuted. It is one, but not necessarily one that regularly presents itself to people directly in their own lives, unlike street harassment, assault, the occasional inability to visit loved ones in the hospital, and so on. Occasional murders do not an identity create. There needs to be a pattern, and it helps when that pattern can be felt in everyday life.
3. After reading a few of the many articles and commentaries on the Stachowicz murder, I feel like putting together a post about the subtle construction of the Other, with asides on hate crime law and allegations of media bias. Rest assured, there'll be a reference to "Blood Sacrifice and the Nation."
4. Peter, I'm glad to hear that you're not in favor of instating Mosaic law in this country, or executing my ex-roommate. Let's get back to the nature of virtue.
Everything is very open with a very clear description of the issues.
It was definitely informative. Your website is very
useful. Thank you for sharing!
Here is my homepage heart disease in women
Post a Comment
<< Home