Would You Like to Post a Retraction? Your God Said You Misquoted Him

by Joshua Maciel

[Author's note: This is not me attempting to sound learned, this is me trying to get people to think about what they're saying, and manage their arguments accordingly. If I wanted to start flaunting any intelligence I allegedly may have, I'd find much more insulting and cocky ways to do it. This is simply me trying to dismiss some common myths that you guys portrayed in your proposition 22 debate.]

Some of you may have noticed that the religious debate got to me to a significant extent. The reason for that is due to my interests. I'm currently a religion and poli sci double major. Considering that I've taken about 6 classes in each major, I've had quite about of time to think about the laws and the Bible. Then when I see people throwing Biblical verses around, and political theory, misquoting, misinterpreting, and not making the final step of analysis, it gets frustrating. So what then is the point of this? I'm going to try to educate you all on some basic points that were tossed around during the debate.

Homosexuality
The first element I'd like to address is that of homosexuality, as well as many other laws, in the Bible. Judaism was competing at many religions in the time it was in. Paganism was in direct competition, there are several references in the Prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) in which the prophets chastise the people of Israel for worshipping the Baals (Babylonian Gods). There is a theory that the forbiddance of meat and dairy in the same meal would make it more difficult for people to convert, since Paganism has several large feasts of which eating unkosher foods would be an element.

There is a similar logical reason as to why there's a forbiddance on pork. They did not have refridgerators in that time, they did not have as good preservation for the meat. Pork is especially susceptible to nasty germs that will cause disease. By preventing the consumption of pork, an entire health risk was greatly dimished by eating kosher. Although there are possibly several other reasons, the fact that this line of reasoning makes so much sense is something to consider.

As for homosexuality, the same kind of argument can be made. First of all, the Jews were not exactly plentiful at the time. Many of the armies during this time were made up of all men, because a man can impregnate several women, but if you lose women, then you have less of an ability to recover population from a war. Thinking of population as an issue, it is quite possible that homosexuality was looked down upon because it would not go with the Biblical verse from God to Abram, "Look toward heaven and count the stars if you are able to count them...So shall your descendants be [plentiful]." (Genesis 15.6)

Secondly, there were incredible Hellenistic influences at the time. The Greeks were in control of Israel for quite a while, and there was a huge outcry against the Hellenization. When talking about homosexuality, the Greek society is often brought up. Because they believed men were so superiour to women, they did not frown upon homosexuality. It was considered to be men preferring the superiour gender. By berating homosexuality, Judaism could prevent Hellenization to a degree possibly.

Judge not...
Another element of the Bible that people seem to enjoy to misquote is in the book of Matthew, "Judge not lest ye be judged yourself" is a common translation. However, expand the context slightly, and examine what you have:
"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's [brother's] eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's [brother's] eye."
-Matthew 7.1-5

Note that paragraph, and note it closely. It does not say "never judge" as many people seem to like to interpret it as. It simply says that before judging others, you must judge yourself. This is an even more poignant point for most of you people make these baseless assumptions and accusations. Perhaps before you examine someone else's beliefs, you should examine your own. Granted God is the final true judge according to the Bible, but that does not mean you should live a life without judgement -- at least not according to the Gospel of Matthew.

The US Constitution
People seem to think that the country was founded to be of perfect fairness, and that if one thing goes, everything else should too. Judicial Review (the ability of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution) is about semantics. Have you ever read Supreme Court cases? They are never a clear, judicious, "this is good, and this is bad." They hinge on these ideas, such as "Clear and Present Danger" for dangerous speech, and "Actual Malice" in the case of public libel. Just because homosexual marriages are allowed, it does not mean that the US Constitution can't prohibit polygamy, etc.

According to most statistics, 10% of all people are homosexual (that is, homosexually primarily, without much of a heterosexual interest). That would mean that 10% of the population, a significant constituency, would like to be married. In this country, how many people out there want to marry a chicken? Not many. How many people out there want to have multiple wives or husbands? Not many. Politicians are politicians. They are interested in gaining support from their constituency (people who can vote for them). Pissing off a large part of their constituency for the sake of the one man who loves a chicken is not good politics.

Political systems do not revolve around ultimate fairness. They revolve around functionality. Functionally, the people in charge believe that in certain places, homosexual marriages will boost approval, so they push for it. There is a social movement happening, much like the civil rights movement, attempting to gain recognition for homosexuals. I hate to reduce it to politics, but that's the realistic view I take.

Politics is about support, judicial review is about semantics. There is no real grounds for saying that if you allow one type of marriage, you have to allow them all. Perhaps if the Supreme Court ruled that homosexual marriages must be allowed on the basis of love, then that would be considered precedent. It's unlikely they would. Total equality is not the goal of a system as our own, especially now with the emphasis on capitalism and competition.

Facts
Now many of you may not agree with a single thing I've said, which is fine. But there are two facts that will greatly reduce the logic of argumentation for those of you still on your high horses. First of all, the fact is that California accepted proposition 22, so live with it, or fight against it either by appealing to the Supreme Court, getting someone who lives in California to do that, or to petition residents of California to bring it back to a voting issue. Writing me editorials will not solve a thing, neither will petty bickering.

Also, religion is not part of our secular government, or is at least not directly represented. Religious arguments do not stand up in court. This country is based on majority rule -- a majority of the voters in California seemed to think that it would be a bad idea for whatever reason, so the law does not exist. This does not mean that Christian law is so supreme that it will never be changed in California, and it does not mean that if the law does change, that you can quote Bible passages to get the Supreme Court to bring it back.

In conclusion, I'm trying to say a couple things. First of all, this argument is futile. Neither side is right or wrong, that's just what our political socialization leads us to believe. What it comes down to is the vote. However, people still have the need to debate about this, which is fine as well. Examination of an issue is often the best way to understand it. However, misquoting, misunderstanding, and making absolutely baseless statements for the sole sake of elevating your argument against your opponent's is not the way to do that.

Come in with an open mind, leave with an open mind, and try to learn something if you must debate. I'm personally sick of seeing people just misrepresenting themselves and others by making these broad generalizations. Every single element of religion and government must be examined beyond face value. Sure God decreed that no man should lay down with another man, but why? Usually there are answers there, just waiting to be found, and they don't necessarily have to do with religion as much as historical situation.

Thank you all for reading this and making it to the bottom. I apologize for anyone I may have offended, because they were probably wrong in the first place [note the wording before you e-mail about that sentence].