Biblical literalism

Posted by on

In her radio show, Dr. Laura Schlesinger (an American conservative radio talk show host), quoting Leviticus 18:22, announced that homosexuality cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura, attributed to Professor James M. Kauffman, Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia,  offered over two days in this blog to make it less long a read:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… end of debate.    I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstruation  – Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the smell is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

To be continued tomorrow.

(This letter appeared in Daily Cos and is presented without need of comment)

Immigration – a problem for Epicureans

Posted by on

There are many people, both in the US and the UK , who oppose immigration not on an economic, but on a cultural basis.  They fear that their countries will become less cohesive.

This is a challenge to Epicureans, who believe in tolerance and live-and-let-live.  Let me take a single example.  In London, opposition to homosexuality is far more prevalent than in the rest of the country. This is despite London being traditionally seen as a haven for Britain’s gay community, and despite being traditionally one of the most tolerant and relaxed cities in the world.

This is owing to a growing immigrant community that is largely socially conservative in a country that is becoming more socially liberal.   This culture conflict, which is religion-based, is likely to cause serious problems in the future. The taxpayer has to contribute towards “anything-goes” religious schools. For instance, there is at least one Jewish fundamentalist school in North London where the boys (only) arrive at 7 a.m and go home at about 8p.m.  They study the Torah only, are kept away from their local community, and are taught that non-Jews must be avoided because the latter hate them. Moslem and Christian schools, likewise, are being influenced by religious extremists, making integration and social cohesion problematic.

Epicurus would have opposed this trend, which is divisive and breeds ignorance and suspicion where none existed before.  If these people cannot integrate and be normal, tolerant citizens then they should go elsewhere.  Unfortunately, they come because “elsewhere” doesn’t seem to produce acceptable government.  A conundrum for us who subscribe to the inclusive world of Epicurus.

Sources:  (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/is-londons-diversity-to-blame-for-its-unprogressive-views-on-homosexuality/)(http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/muslims-in-the-uk-are-now-attacking-mosques-does-that-make-them-islamophobic/) and (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33999801.)

(Topic and websites from Owen Bell)

We mustn’t give up on handwriting

Posted by on

Schools in Finland are to phase out the teaching of joined-up handwriting, “on the grounds that being nifty at a keyboard is more important” in the modern age.

“This is desperately short-sighted. Touch-typing is certainly a skill that should be taught to all children, but that’s no reason to abandon cursive handwriting. It’s like giving up walking because you have learned to drive. Handwriting is the face of a person out of sight, as distinctive as their gait. It offers a window to our emotions: only with a pen can you write a love note or letter of condolence that looks as though it came from the heart.  “Few of us get to wield a paintbrush or charcoal daily, to make a mark that is completely original to us.” Let’s hope the Finns reconsider, and that no other country follows their lead”.   (Claudia Pritchard,  The Independent on Sunday, edited)

Handwriting offers not just a window into our emotions but is a clue to the educational level and background of the writer.  Useful for employers, aside from anything else.  You can make grammatical and spelling mistakes on a computer or cellphone, but these can be put down to hurried carelessness.  To write something by hand and get it wrong somehow has more impact. It’s nice, for instance, to receive a “thank you”, but a handwritten one is more personal because it takes more effort.   I can see that it is easier for teachers to teach a class touch- typing than laboriously teaching cursive writing, but this is no reason to blandify and homogenize everything. And,  by the way, things typed electronically can be hacked, are effectively public and can be copied and used against you.  The personal touch, the personal connection between human beings is in any case a big part of Epicureanism.   Let us protect this instance of it.

The pleasures of living in a walkable community

Posted by on

Owen Bell is a regular commenter on this  blog.  He has kindly sent me a number items he has gleaned from his readings, and I will be sharing them with readers.  Here is one:

Where you prefer to live may have something to do with your political views. According to Pew Research (http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/pp-2014-06-12-polarization-0-08/), liberals prefer walkable communities, while  conservatives prefer the suburbs.

This is curious.  Could it be that conservatives have a preference for big houses (known as macmansions) with big gardens, and are happy to get in the (large) car to go everywhere because nothing is nearby except other big houses?  Are liberals more health conscious and therefore prefer walking?  Has it something to do with gated communities on the one hand, the proximity of the country club, or a preference for old houses on the other?  Do liberals prefer the anonymity of the big town or city to the (supposed) clubbiness of the suburbs?  Has it anything to do with gardens or walking the dog?  Comments?

 

 

Turgenev to Pauline Viardot:

Posted by on

“Speaking personally, I am attached to the ground.  I would prefer to watch the precipitous movements of the damp foot of a duck as it scratches the back of its head by the side of a lake, or the long sparkling drops of water falling slowly from the mouth of a cow as it stands motionless and up to its knees drinking water from a pond, to anything the cherubim ( those illustrious flying forms) could perceive in their heavens”.