March 2007 - Page 7 of 7 - Ramblin' with Roger

By the Secrets

In anticipation of the first Sunday in Lent, which was last Sunday, my Bible group was reading Deuteronomy 26. It is a lovely piece about appreciation for God and how we need to offer our first fruits to God, which one could look up, in several versions, here. Deuteronomy, BTW, means “second law”. But scanning the page, I saw in the Bible something I’d never seen before.

I’ve read the Bible all the way through twice. Once was in 1977, seven months with the King James Version. The other was 1996-1997, 13 months with the New International Version or maybe the Revised Standard Version.

Anyway, here’s Deuteronomy 25:
KJV
(11)When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:
(12)Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
NIV
(11)If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, (12) you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
New American Standard Bible
(11)”If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals,
(12)then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.”

OK, forgetting the creepy payoff: yes, I had never seen “genitals” in the Bible, and it’s the fault of the lectionary. The lectionary is a mechanism by which the Scripture is read over a three-year period, each year featuring one of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). If you go here, then click on the Index of Lectionary Readings by Biblical Books, you’ll see that Deuteronomy 24 and 25, which are full of all sorts of arcane laws, are not included. So, it’s unlikely that most church attendees will hear a sermon on this Scripture (though you’ll see it illustrated in LegosTM here), or that lovely story about a man refusing to marry his dead brother’s widow, so she gets to spit in his face, also in Deuteronomy 25 (and illustrated in Legos here).

So just how much of the Bible IS in the lectionary? I don’t have a definitive answer, but this report on the Catholic version of the Bible suggests that it’s most of the New Testament, but a very small portion (less than 15%) of the Old Testament, except for the Psalms.

Of course, ministers do vary from the lectionary at times, but I’ll be shocked the first time I hear this text as a basis for a sermon. I’ll be certain to be intrigued by how one could take that message and apply it to today’s world.

Also, this means that one of these days, I’m going to need yet another translation of the Bible all the way through.
***
And since I seem to be on the topic, I’m loving the controversy about the Newbery Award-winning book ‘The Higher Power of Lucky’ over the use of the word scrotum, referring to a canine’s private parts, which has propelled the book’s sales.
***
According to a new book, Americans are the most religiously ignorant people in the West.

In the News QUESTIONS

I’m recalling that the guy who did the In the News segments on Saturday morning s for CBS died last year. What WAS his name? He had a great voice.

Anyway, an extension of a recent Lefty question.

1. Where do you get the news?
Local newspaper? Yes, I read the Albany Times Union, more for the local stories.
National newspaper? Yes, the Wall Street Journal, even though their editorial policy is obnoxious. I do like the cool sabermetric stuff they have on the Friday sports page, their movie recviews are usually spot on, and I like the wine, small business and and technology columns. I USED to read the NY Times daily; those were the days, he sighed. Someone tortured me by getting me a free NYT last Sunday; still haven’t read the book review or the magazine.
Local TV news? I used to, back when this guy was anchoring. But now, I might get “News in a Minute” from the Time Warner folks, unless some major story has broken, when I’ll usually tuirn to the NBC or ABC affiliate.
National news? ABC in the evenings, ABC and CBS on Sunday morning; the ABC show does a best of the late night comedians segment. Also 60 Minutes, for stories such as Brundibar: How The Nazis Conned The World by using a children’s opera to deceive the International Red Cross, which, frankly, made me weep; and GIs Petition Congress To End Iraq War, which frankly gave me hope – check out The Appeal for Redress website for more information. The Today show on those rare times I watch in the morning.
Radio news? About four minutes worth on NPR at 6 a.m., usually. If I’m in the car, I’ll sometimes catch NPR.
Internet news? I tend to note the pieces on Google or AOL, but don’t tend to read them unless they’re breaking stories, usually a storm (Alabama, Florida), a death (Molly Ivins), or a rampage (Utah mall). Occasionally, I’ll check out the local paper’s website, usually when the weather’s dodgy, and I want to know about school closings.
Internet commentary (e.g., Daily Kos)? Rarely, unless someone sends me a link.
E-mailed news? I get a notice from Hispanic Business, which often has news elements.
Most of the above I do NOT watch in real time.

2. Why do you get, or don’t get, the news?
As a librarian, I’ve found it useful context for future questions. Someone reads about a new tax policy and wants to know the implications for themselves. I COULD look it up when asked, but I have found it easier to answer when I have some idea what they’re talking about. Besides, I have that JEOPARDY!-champion-know-it-all burden to maintain. Everyone assumes I know everything (except about cars, where they KNOW I haven’t a clue).
That said, sometimes, I tune out certain stories: another helicopter going down in Afghanistan or Iraq, or the next car bombing that kills scores of civilians, out of self-preservation.

Torture: I’m Against It

Well, that does seem obvious, I suppose. But this winter, ABC News was doing their Basic Instincts series, and they broadcast a piece on The Science of Evil. They replicated the Milgram experiment:
“The Milgram experiment was a series of famous scientific studies of social psychology, intended to measure the willingness of a participant to obey an authority who instructs the participant to do something that may conflict with the participant’s personal conscience.”

Then I discovered Ella Mazel. She is a…vintage woman who, in 1998, had put together a “treasury of quotes on the past, present, and future of the color line in America” called And don’t call me a racist!, which a colleague of mine had received at a conference, and had given me a copy. Ms. Mazel doesn’t sell the book, although she appreciates money for the postage.

Subsequently, she’s compiled Not in MY name!, a collection of quotes on the past, present, and future of the practice of torture. Even without photos, or specific descriptions of torture, I found it to be a disturbing read. This latter book is available only online.

Finally, I found a compelling read which matched my opinion as to Why I Stopped Watching “24”.

"Sing If You’re Glad To Be Gay"

Some old Tom Robinson song is stuck in my head.

I didn’t comment on the Tim Hardaway gay bashing comment the other week because I just didn’t have anything fresh to say about it. I noticed TH on the Hating section of Tom the Dog’s sidebar. I did note in Gay Prof’s comments on the subject that I thought the Hardaway incident was a good thing because it got the topic out there. GP’s best line, BTW: “I think Hardaway harbors resentment that he has a last name well suited for a gay porn star.”

I am annoyed that Hardaway, and, for that matter, Isaiah Washington of Grey’s Anatomy, also accused of gay bashing one of his co-stars, are black, based on the obviously faulty and naive notion on my part that, being aware of the discrimination placed on their own people, that they would be more sensitive before castigating others.

In any case, I am intrigued by three pieces of legislation that may be addressed by Congress, noted here. One is “a measure that would outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation”; I think this a no-brainer, though proving such behavior towards women and blacks, for instance, is often difficult. Even more hard to prove, unless it’s as blatant as a Matthew Shepherd type of situation, is a “hate-crimes bill that would cover offenses motivated by anti-gay bias.” I favor both, and both are expected to pass.

The other item in play is a bill seeking repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that bans openly gay and lesbian Americans from serving in the military. The edict was established in 1993, when Bill Clinton, in pretty much his first act as President, authorized it.

I never much liked it, thinking that it created a class of people who essentially had to lie by omission about who they were. At the same time, I heard about how even being suspected as gay in the military could be very treacherous. A new wrinkle is that, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocacy group that supports lifting the ban, the policy is disproportionately affecting troops in key specialties:
Of 742 such dismissals in fiscal year 2005, the highest number than in any category — 49 — were medical personnel. An additional 40 were law enforcement officers, along with 14 intelligence officers, 35 infantrymen, and seven nuclear, biological and chemical warfare specialists.
This generally squares with the Government Accountability Office’s 2004 study, which found that of the 9,488 service members who at that point had been discharged from the military for gay and lesbian conduct since 1993, approximately 757 — or 8 percent — “held critical occupations,” meaning the kinds of jobs for which the Pentagon offers selective reenlistment bonuses. That number included 322 with “skills in an important language such as Arabic, Farsi or Korean.”
So, besides the deception aspect, the policy may not be working.

I think I understand the notion of closeted gays. The imperfect parallel I can relate to is when a black person “passes” for white, and wants to hide his/her darker skinned relatives, lest someone find out the terrible secret.

But, from this vantage point, it appears that coming out is very liberating. I don’t hear as many snarky comments about Ellen Degeneres as I did a few years ago: (Post 9/11/2001 sample from a particular blowhard that I will not name: “This is the second time in a row that God has invoked a disaster shortly before lesbian Ellen Degeneres hosted the Emmy Awards.”) I don’t know what particular disaster has supposedly befallen America now that she’s hosted the Oscars.

John Amaechi, the target of Hardaway’s attack, is now an official spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign’s Coming Out Project, a program designed to help gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people come out and live openly.

But no one I recall has been more liberated in coming out as George Takei, Mr. Sulu from Star Trek, as seen here:

Link
ROG