1

Re: Christian Platonism

You need not wonder where these ideas come from. They come from our parents, pastors, teachers, and from a plethra of great (though recent) Christian writers. They also come from the Bible, once we are so used to reading it wrong. e.g. - "Kingdom of Heaven" means that place we all go to when we die.

I'm totally with you here, but this bit of historic Christian orthodoxy (resurrection of the body, new creation) has been quite a revelation to me. Now I wonder how I ever thought myself a Christian without it, but before I never really even noticed. Kinda scarey, actually.

One thing to keep in mind though - if this is truly a theological treasure we as evangelicals are rediscovering, perhaps those of us in the cutting edge of the dig shouldn't look down too much on those who haven't come along yet.

2

Joe, your blog is a real eye opener for me. Are there really a lot of Christians out there who do not know about Christ's bodily resurrection? Do they not know that we too will be resurrected in the same type of new body like Christ received?

I can't say ive ever met a Christian who thinks they will get a halo and wings when they die, but I suppose they must be out there. How strange!

And now such thinking has become mainstream? Where are you all meeting these Christians that are so immature in the Word?

3

Regarding Foley, this sad incident has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is about an elected official who took advantage of his power and position to prey on young people. He abused his position of trust to harm minors for his own personal gratification. It does not get much sicker than that. The fact that the page was male is mostly irrelevant, and those who advocate gay rights would do well to distance themselves from this scandal. This is similar to, but worse than, the scandal with Gov. Jim McGreevey in NJ. Again, the homosexual angle is not the point of the scandal. In fact, gays should be offended that this connection is being made.

We are all sinners, and we should not expect perfection in our politicians. However, we should expect basic minimum standards of ethics. We should expect that someone would possess some concept of morality. Preying on children is an incredibly detestable crime. We should impose extra harsh penalties on anyone -- teacher, coach, clergy person, etc. -- who abuses his/her position of trust and harms children.

Regarding medical privacy, there is much information that could be used against you by, say, an employer or an auto insurance company if it were widely available. The information could be used to discriminate against you. Imagine if you had a sign around your neck that said, "I have cancer but it is in remission at the moment." How many employers would hire you?

Also, as strange as it may seem, I believe that there are people who might have some perverse interest in knowing about my hemorrhoids, moles, etc. It's not their business.

Finally, remember that many medical conditions have a social stigma -- including mental health conditions, and AIDS -- and people should not have to suffer more than necessary because of unneccesary knowledge of the condition by other people, and the resulting prejudice.

4

Joe:

As is usually the case, I appreciate your hyperbolic and wry sense of humor. Do you not fear, however, that Piper will think you too clever to be glorifying to God?

I say that in jest and only as a segue to my point: Piper's broad, restrictive criticism of Driscoll and all speakers rings a bit hollow for me. To say,

"A pastor cannot be clever and show Christ as glorious,"

is (to me, at least) tantamount to saying that an artist (such as pre-code Da Vinci) should not make his painting too beautiful, a writer (such as Tolkien) should not demonstrate his prowess in painting word pictures, or a philosopher (such as Alvin Plantinga) should blanket his or her virtuosity lest the glory of Christ be compromised.

I find Jesus' arguments and statements to be quite clever and eloquent at times: was He thus in danger of not showing the Father as glorious? When the writer of Hebrews spoke/wrote so beautifully (in Greek), was the glory of Christ at risk?

If Mark Driscoll can, by his cleverness and delivery, make Christ attractive and interesting while - and this is a critical qualifier - handling properly the word of truth, why should he be muzzled? Perhaps we all should allow Driscoll to be that part of the Body of Christ which he is - including the expression of the gifts associated with that member - and Piper to do the same. If there is theological error, then rebuke; if stylistic differences, then listen to someone else.

I'm not suggesting that Piper is threatened by Driscoll in any way and therefore wants to dampen the enthusiasm of his listeners. I am saying that the unofficial pope of our Reformed and Baptist brethren might be more prudent in his public correction of another influential and effective communicator of the gospel.

Disclaimer: I have not heard Driscoll speak (except for a short interview) and have read very little of his writings or transcriptions. If he is being inappropriate, then that is another matter; mere cleverness, imagination, and creativity, however, is an aspect of the image of God in us. Are some lamps meant to be hidden from sight?

5

Medical Privacy

The HIPAA statute was implemented in 1996, at a high point in the public awareness and concern for AIDS. The less charitable will probably describe the public reaction as hysteria, but, be that as it may, there were cases wherein people with AIDS were losing their jobs due to concerns of co-workers who came in contact with them. Businesses also had a fear of bankruptcy because of health insurance costs related to AIDS treatment.

The bill was defended as (1) insuring that people who were ill continued to receive treatment and (2) defense of gay persons, who were/are the most likely to contact AIDS.

My wife and daughters both work for doctors, and the regulations are extensive. A call to remind someone of a doctor appointment, if delivered to an answering machine or another person, cannot mention the illness. Computer monitors must not be viewable by others. Paperwork cannot be viewable by others. When you go the the pharmacy, there is a line on the floor that you must stand behind when in line, to prevent you from seeing the medicine perscribed to someone else.

6

RE: Medical Records

Recent privacy laws have gone slightly off the deep end, but there is a reason behind the madness. People don't go through my trash because there isn't a benefit to doing so. For most individuals, there isn't much benefit in picking up info on my particular ailments, either. The concern is that individuals or organizations that do stand to benefit from medical records (health insurance providers, potential employers, opposing softball league managers) might begin combing records data. Unfortunately, it would be awfully hard to prove it if I was laid off due to a family history of heart disease and not some other reason, so the best way of preventing this kind of misuse is to put the records under lock and key.

7

Joe,

The medical records/garbage on the street analogy falls flat on numerous levels. First, home shredders are a growth industry because people fear identity theft. Second, the fact that I use liquid soap instead of bar soap or that I prefer Pizza Hut to Dominos probably won't keep me from getting a job or get me fired. Employers can use medical histories to deny advancement and make decisions about hiring and firing that have nothing to do with job performance. Third, if I have a terminal condition, I deserve the opportunity for privacy and dignity that publication of medical records would deny. I am confused why anyone whould trust doctors who sell or people who purchase medical records not to use the information maliciously.

8

re Medical Records. What a mystery! Why would anyone care about putting things like notes from counseling sessions, chemical dependency treatment records, prescriptions for sexual dysfunction out in the public domain? Beats me.

9

On Piper and Driscoll:
"If the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into a ditch".
I don't care who you are, that's funny(clever).

10

How long does he get to make such dumb remarks before the goodwill wears off?

The goodwill people give to their favorite writers inspite of dumb remarks lasts quite a long time. Look at the goodwill people give Joe for example and we have yet to even see a 'Golden Age of Joe' and the prospects of ever seeing one are slim at best.

11

Re: Medical Records

The problem I see it is that such records have the potential to subvert the idea of insurance.

Insurance 101 says if 1 out of 100 houses burn down each year then insurance would charge each homeowner a premium of 1/100th of a house. However what would happen if we could know ahead of time whose house would burn down? Well the 99 people whose house would not burn would have no reason to buy insurance and the insurance company would have no reason to write a policy to the 1 person whose house will burn unless he was willing to pay a premium equal to 100% of a house.

People fear a world where data mining combined with medical records that are as open as credit reports are today would allow insurance companies to profile the sick people out of the insurance pool. Needless to say job discrimination, even though it is illegal, also remains a serious factor.

12

And yet he’s often given a pass because he “used to be such a talented writer.” When exactly was this Golden Age of Andy? I must have missed it.

Who - name names now - exactly gives Andrew Sullivan "a pass?" I personally find him to be an artificially eclectic, pretentious, somewhat false actor playing the part of the reasonable token ______________ . (Fill in the blank: gay, Catholic, gay Catholic, gay Christian, immigrant, "person who's had a change of heart," come out of the closet, etc.)

The fact that Andrew Sullivan is always brought out to play that part of the reasonable token whatever, and the fact that it's done in so many different guises but Sullivan still acts the same - kind of like Robin Williams in his movies - is exactly why Sullivan's schtick rings so false to me.

And I bet there's at least one conservative Christian out there that won't disagree with me.

13

Actually I think Sullivan is a fine chap. He is a good writer and I remember reading The New Republic back when he was editor (granted I thought Kinsley was better).

There is also nothing unreasonable about the point he made here. It's undeniable that being deceptive does lead one to dark places and to do things they would have otherwise not done. I don't know if Foley is married with children (I suspect he probably is) but if he is then spending decades pretending not to be gay has in itself caused great harm to his family even if he never started playing games over the internet.

Does this mean that if the world accepted gays without rancor that this would have never happened? No, as Joe notes this sort of thing also happens quite a bit between older men and younger women (and less often between older women and younger men).

Besides if you read Sullivan's blog it is quite clear that he does NOT approve of this behavior:

Examples:
When you build a party's base on preternatural fear and loathing of gays, then your party establishment is unwise to cover for a closeted gay congressmen taking advantage of impressionable pages.

No one should excuse Foley's creepy interactions; they are inexcusable, as is the alleged cover-up (although we shouldn't jump to conclusions yet about who knew what when).

If what Foley did wasn't actually illegal, it was still abusive and wrong. It was also obviously hypocritical, given Foley's grandstanding about a safe Internet.

14

No, there was never a "Golden Age of Sullivan." He's been, like one of those Log Cabin Republicans, the sort of dog that keeps crawling back to its master hoping for another beating.

By aligning himself with neo-con right, he has championed the efforts of those who would prefer to see him firmly back in the closet - at best. The worst I leave to your imagination.

Especially annoying is when he gets hauled out on Real Time or the like, and is used as a foil against a liberal intellectual. The result is uniformly sad beyond words. He's a genuine disappointment and a failure. You get a soapbox like that, you ought to use it to better the world, not merely pad your pathetic little nest.

All that said, he seems to have had a slight change of heart recently and may be getting over his 9/11 shock, which is an illness that appears to have affected many Americans.

15

I think Foley is a disgusting pervert.

However, the reaction of the left is predictably amusing in the extreme.

First, if the left gets their way, in the next decade or two people like Foley will be able to marry their pages or promenade through Disneyland hand-in-hand on their very own special day.

Second, the comparison with President Bubba is obvious (unless you're a "homophobe"). At least Foley had the dignity to resign. The Bubs is still wagging that - ahem - finger.

Wisdom from The Clinton Archives for the left: you may want to put some ice on that. Cigar?

16

George seems to think soliciting sex from minors is equal to consensual sex between adults. Who exactly is the "disgusting pervert"?

17

The Raven,

My imagination is rather lacking when it comes to how you think I might want to treat somone like Sullivan. Care to fill me in?

18

The parallel between trash & medical records is deficient because there is a reasonable expectation that the garbage will be hauled away, destroyed and become inaccessable within a short period of time. Medical records will be retained indefinitely.

There is also the possibility that medical records could be used in the future to argue that a condition was pre-existing. In today's litigious society, what would refrain an insurance company from filing suit and arguing that an illness shouldn't be covered since it "should have been" detected & treated previously.

19

I fail to see just what is so intriguing or astonishing about flooding a church and having people walk on individual steps across the water. Oh wait... I see it now... the "artist" is telling us about his innate fear of being drowned in the oppressive theological stance of the church. Or perhaps he's stating how one must carefully balance their knowledge of systematic theology, lest they slip and succumb to the depths below?

Or maybe, depending on one's sense of balance, this is simply an elaborate version of being impacted by an elastic, rubber container filled with H20 - commonly known as a "water-balloon".

Another example of artistic hubris.

20

"Whenever I hear Gore speak like this I thank God (and the good people of Florida) that he never made it to the Presidency."

AMEN!

He says we have like 10 years left, right? I just read that someone (can't remember who, sorry) gave the world a more conservative "point of no return deadline" of 2020. Apparently, if we don't fix global warming by then, were done for.

Obviously this makes no logical sense: if we are in fact the cause of global warming, then we can ALWAYS stop it. If either of these guys is right about a point of no return deadline, then it follows that we're NOT the cause.

21

Taranto simply exhibits the familiar conservative incapacity for reading comprehension. Sullivan isn't saying that it's better to be an uncloseted pedophile than a closeted pedophile. He's saying that the opression that necessarily forces one to secretly seek illicit relationships - by making all of one's relationships illicit and making it impossible to seek them openly - thereby reduces one's ability to discriminate between "good" secret illicit relationships and "bad" secret illicit relationship. In other words, closeting homosexuals by treating homosexuality itself as synonymous with, or at least morally equivalent to, pedophilia then creates pedophilia by removing any distinction between good and bad relationships, and the solution to this would be to stop driving homosexuals into the closet.

This may or may not be a correct etiology for pedophilia (though it's undoubtedly at least somewhat correct; discrimination obviously distorts gay sexuality - it drives it into the closet - so it would not be surprising to find it continues to distort it inside the closet). But it has nothing to do with saying that closeting is worse than pedophilia; it's a claim regarding the causal relationship between them. That really isn't so hard to understand.

As for this paragraph:

[Digression: I’ve noticed that for the past several years has made some of the most outlandish remarks in the blogosphere. And yet he’s often given a pass because he “used to be such a talented writer.” When exactly was this Golden Age of Andy? I must have missed it. How long does he get to make such dumb remarks before the goodwill wears off? You know, I think there’s another explanation. I think he benefits from the Apparent Contradiction Exemption (ACE). If you belong a political species that is a hybrid of two or more groups that aren’t normally combined (liberal evangelical, pro-life Democrat) then you are allowed to be treated differently. Sullivan pretends to be a gay conservative Catholic. But the truth is that he’s not conservative and not really Catholic. Mostly he’s just gay. No, let me rephrase that: he’s all gay, all the time. For Sullivan, being gay isn’t an orientation it is the root of his very being. If he was a heterosexual we’d all think his being defined by his sexual preference would be weird. But because he’s an Officially Persecuted Minority, his opinion is treated as being worth more than your typical third-rate blogger.]

It's interesting to watch it get further and further off the rails as it goes along.

I’ve noticed that for the past several years [Andrew Sullivan] has made some of the most outlandish remarks in the blogosphere. And yet he’s often given a pass because he “used to be such a talented writer.” When exactly was this Golden Age of Andy? I must have missed it.

Yes - I think this is largely true.

another explanation. I think he benefits from the Apparent Contradiction Exemption (ACE). If you belong a political species that is a hybrid of two or more groups that aren’t normally combined (liberal evangelical, pro-life Democrat) then you are allowed to be treated differently.

I think this is true, too, but I don't think it's a case of exceptionalism. I think it's more that the conceptual expectations regarding the link between the opposed positions are violated, and that makes it harder to evaluate the person's stance. (A conservative Catholic who is anti-gay is playing to type, but a conservative evangelical who is pro-gay-rights is harder to evaluate - if they then also turn out to be pro-contraception, are they violating their principles or living up to them? What expectations do we have for someone whose personal principles are drawn from normally-separate constellations?)

Sullivan pretends to be a gay conservative Catholic. But the truth is that he’s not conservative and not really Catholic. Mostly he’s just gay. No, let me rephrase that: he’s all gay, all the time.

No: for one thing, his blog makes it clear this isn't the case. But more importantly, writing about gay issues isn't the same as being "all gay, all the time". There are thousands of single-issue blogs, and thousands more that - like Sullivan's - cover broad issues but tend to reflect important themes in their authors' lives. It's perfectly reasonable for a blog to have a focus - and who would be more focused on gay issues than gay people? - but that's not the definition of the person behind the blog.

LaShawn Barber is a conservative evangelical whose blog tends to focus on a particular aspect of her life experience - but nobody calls her "all black, all the time". Dawn Eden is a conservative Catholic whose blog seems to have only one theme, but nobody says she is "all Dawn, all the time". Characterizing Sullivan as "all gay" because he blogs about gay issues tells us that you only see his gayness when you see him. If you could see him as a fully-rounded person, you'd agree that fully-rounded people can have particular interests.

For Sullivan, being gay isn’t an orientation it is the root of his very being.

For Sullivan, being gay is something important to write about. For you, Sullivan's being gay is the very root of his being.

If he was a heterosexual we’d all think his being defined by his sexual preference would be weird.

If he was heterosexual and it was illegal for almost his entire life to have sex of any kind whatsoever under any circumstances in many of the states of the union on pain of imprisonment, if over 1,000 formal privileges affecting deeply personal matters were legally denied to him unless he got married and the law explicitly prohibited him from getting married, if society was filled with bigots who not only mocked and abused but sometimes killed heterosexuals for being heterosexual, if the mere fact of being heterosexual was a barrier to many jobs, and if his own political party had dedicated themselves to altering the Constitution itself to deny basic civil liberties to heterosexuals in an open bid to cultivate their most bigoted members, we'd think it was weird. And if, subject to such persecution, heterosexuals didn't speak out about it at length, we'd think that was even weirder. But we'd think that other people's referring to heterosexuals as "being defined by" the fact that causes those same people to persecute them relentlessly was the weirdest thing of all.

If Martin Luther King had had a blog, what do you think he'd write about? And how often? Would that be evidence of some kind of psychological disorder on his part?

But because he’s an Officially Persecuted Minority, his opinion is treated as being worth more than your typical third-rate blogger.

Uh, Joe - he's an Actually Persecuted Minority. When you look at Sullivan, you can't see anything but gay, yet you don't see that being gay comes at a price? And this while you mock Sullivan for caring that he himself is gay, and support a Constitutional amendment to make any relationship he might desire to enter actually illegal? I guess we should call you "All phobic, all the time", eh?

As to why he's taken seriously, I would think it's similar to the reasons other major bloggers are: they have talent, got in early, and crafted an interesting environment that brings people back - which then snowballs to breed its own success. Not every high-traffic blogger is the best writer or thinker of the day, just as not every best-seller author is the best writer of their day. They have to do enough things right to earn some attention, but part of it in all cases is luck and circumstances as well.

22

"no one else cares about your hemorrhoids" and "we don’t need to worry about this private information being made public because nobody has any incentive to make it public"

This is completely false, and reinforces my impression of Levitt as a clever guy who often overlooks common-sense aspects of his own theories.

For one thing, we know people are interested in the medical records of other people. There is a perennial problem in hospitals with staff accessing the private records of famous patients who check in. Most hospitals have records controls they can put on the files if they think it's necessary. Cedars-Sinai, here in New York, just disciplined almost 20 staff for illicitly accessing the records of some athlete who had been admitted - and this after warning the staff that such access was prohibted and that record controls were in place.

Aside from celebrities, there is the obvious problem that medical records could be used against one by angry spouses, employers, parties in lawsuits, or whomever. The publicized release of private information could be used to embarrass people, or to gain some kind of advantage over them (if you knew your business rival was dying of cancer and had to wind up their affairs quickly, you could take a hard line in negotiations). And if records were freely available, anyone could snoop through your files just out of curiosity - your neighbors, potential dates, your students if you're a teacher, your troops if you're a military officer, and so on. There are obviously lots of reasons why lots of people might want any individual person's private records. It's probably true that there is a low chance that any particular person would want any other particular person's records - but for any individual, there's probably a reasonable chance that at least one other person would want their records, if only out of curiousity; for anyone involved in a situation in which private records could be relevant (meaning virtually anyone involved in a divorce, lawsuit, political campaign, or public controversy), it is almost certain they will be accessed if that access is legal.

But this only speaks to the question who wants the information. (The answer: many more people than Levitt recognizes.) The really important question is whether you want that information released.

It doesn't matter whether you're a celebrity, or a litigant, or a private citizen. It doesn't matter whether anyone wants your medical records or not. What matters is that those records come from your voluntary release of highly personal information to specified, trusted people for specific, deeply personally significant reasons. The terms of your release of that information specify that it is not to be shared without necessity - that alone obligates the recipient to maintain confidentiality. But more importantly, such confidentiality should be maintained, not merely as a matter of contractual agreement but because it's important in its own right to do so.

Confidentiality is important for a number of reasons: because the release of highly personal information is often embarrassing or distressing, and thus would harm those whose privacy is violated; because the release of information one does not want released is a violation of one's privacy whether or not it is embarrassing; because the release of such information deepens the invasion of privacy that inherently accompanies medical treatment, and thus erases the cloak of professional dignity that makes it possible to endure some of the things one must endure in treatment; because the assurance that information will not be released is a major motivator to patients to share information freely with their care providers, and the breach of that assurance would harm patient care by causing patients to withhold information; and because the obligation to respect patient privacy is an important part of the beneficent relationship caregivers have with patients, which would be voided if caregivers or others were then free to act against the patients' interests by violating their privacy.

This is all so common-sensical, and such a long-standing part of medical ethics universally (an explicit obligation of privacy appears in the Hippocratic Oath, 2,500 years old), that it's hard to believe Levitt doesn't recognize this, or that he would blithely sweep it aside. I'm always suspicious of people who can so easily come up with breezy dismissals of other people's rights - that this one is so out of touch with the simple reality of the case is more worrisome.

23

Obviously this makes no logical sense: if we are in fact the cause of global warming, then we can ALWAYS stop it.

Not obviously. I may be able to start a boulder rolling down a hill, but that doesn't mean I can stop it. See also "runaway greenhouse effect."

24

He's saying that the opression that necessarily forces one to secretly seek illicit relationships - by making all of one's relationships illicit and making it impossible to seek them openly - thereby reduces one's ability to discriminate between "good" secret illicit relationships and "bad" secret illicit relationship.

Indeed, it should be noted as well that sexual attraction in itself is not perverted or evil. The fact is youth is attractive and many people will find themselves attracted to people in their late teens. The term 'jail bait' was created by 'normal' hetrosexuals. Not child molestors or criminals.

However all of us must limit our sexual activities to a degree lower than what our imaginations can produce. Even the most libertine orientated person quickly learns there are many situtations where sexuality is off limits.

For Sullivan, being gay is something important to write about. For you, Sullivan's being gay is the very root of his being.

Good observation Keith. I'm reminded of Stephen Colbert's routines where he tells black people he doesn't know their race because he is 'color blind' but he's accepting applications to fill the role of "my black friend". Joe would, in other contexts, have us believe that homosexuality was just a 'lifestyle choice' no more fundamental to one's beign as whether they tended to drive above the speed limit.

25

[Quote] Sullivan isn't saying that it's better to be an uncloseted pedophile than a closeted pedophile. He's saying that the opression that necessarily forces one to secretly seek illicit relationships - by making all of one's relationships illicit and making it impossible to seek them openly - thereby reduces one's ability to discriminate between "good" secret illicit relationships and "bad" secret illicit relationship.[/quote]

So the only choices Foley had were illicit relationships? You do realize he is married with kids? Can you give an example of a "good" secret illicit relationship? I am having trouble figuring out what this might be for a married person.

What an incredible rationalization for the behavior of a pedophile. As I said above, gays should run away from any connection to this guy.

[quote]In other words, closeting homosexuals by treating homosexuality itself as synonymous with, or at least morally equivalent to, pedophilia then creates pedophilia by removing any distinction between good and bad relationships, and the solution to this would be to stop driving homosexuals into the closet.[/quote]

Was it not a conscious choice to solicit sex from underage males whose parents entrusted them to Congress? What does this premeditated choice have to do with being in the closet? Who in the world has said that homosexuality between consenting adults is morally equivalent to pedophilia?

On the other hand, if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then his behavior is acceptable because he would have been discriminated against? Foley is apparently an alcoholic, too. Why don't we just say that the alcohol caused it, and if we stopped discriminating against alcoholics this would never have happened. Forcing alcoholics to be anonymous destroys their self esteem, distorts their ability to distinguish between good extra-marital affairs and bad extra-marital affairs, and just generally caused this whole mess.

[quote]This may or may not be a correct etiology for pedophilia (though it's undoubtedly at least somewhat correct; discrimination obviously distorts gay sexuality - it drives it into the closet - so it would not be surprising to find it continues to distort it inside the closet). But it has nothing to do with saying that closeting is worse than pedophilia; it's a claim regarding the causal relationship between them. That really isn't so hard to understand.[/quote]

All I understand is that this sounds like an outrageous rationalization for incredibly disgusting behavior.

26

So the only choices Foley had were illicit relationships? You do realize he is married with kids? Can you give an example of a "good" secret illicit relationship? I am having trouble figuring out what this might be for a married person.

Errr, no I think I provided numerous quotes from Sullivan here showing how his behavior was wrong and inexcusable.

What an incredible rationalization for the behavior of a pedophile. As I said above, gays should run away from any connection to this guy.

A pedophile is someone attracted to children. If one of these young pages, say, went out and committed murder I don't doubt you would have any objection to them being tried as adults or at least treated differently than a 9 year old who killed someone. There is a Greek word for attraction to teens and young adults but it slips my mind at the moment.

Was it not a conscious choice to solicit sex from underage males whose parents entrusted them to Congress? What does this premeditated choice have to do with being in the closet? Who in the world has said that homosexuality between consenting adults is morally equivalent to pedophilia?

Perhaps you should try reading what you are responding too. Sullivan's quote, as cited by Joe:

What I do know is that the closet corrupts. The lies it requires and the compartmentalization it demands can lead people to places they never truly wanted to go, and for which they have to take ultimate responsibility. From what I've read, Foley is another example of this destructive and self-destructive pattern for which the only cure is courage and honesty.

Clearly Sullivan is not claiming Foley's choice was not conscious. On the contrary, it was caused by an earlier concsious choice he made to live in the closet which set up a pattern of lies and compartmentalization which made it easier to take this step into even worse behavior. As you should be able to read Sullivan's answer is for 'courage and honesty' which are clearly conscious choices that Foley choose not to make from the beginning.

On the other hand, if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then his behavior is acceptable because he would have been discriminated against? Foley is apparently an alcoholic, too. Why don't we just say that the alcohol caused it, and if we stopped discriminating against alcoholics this would never have happened. Forcing alcoholics to be anonymous destroys their self esteem, distorts their ability to distinguish between good extra-marital affairs and bad extra-marital affairs, and just generally caused this whole mess.

Not quite. If a person lives in a country where alchol is banned then being an alcoholic may very well put them in situations where they deal with the criminal underworld and engage in crimes worse than being an alcoholic. In many cases those crimes would not have happened if alcohol was permitted. However even so some will still engage in wrong behavior.

I'll point out that this sort of thing often happens with hetrosexuals even though hetrosexuality is accepted and embraced by our society. I don't doubt, though, that if hetrosexuality was as 'in the closet' as homosexuality often is this sort of thing would happen more with hetrosexuals.

I'm surprised by the hostile reaction to Sullivan's quote. All he is basically saying is that choosing not to be honest often leads to worse things. Yes sometimes honest people will do those worse things anyway and sometimes dishonest people will refrain from doing worse things. Yet this hardly seems like a message that a Christian audience would reject!

27

Joe,

How do you manage to attract such a fiercly loyal crowd of anti-fans? You need to put that on your blogging tips. What do I need to do to attract this kind of abuse and scorn over at my blog?

28

Joe,

Andrew Sullivan is a creepy old dude!

As a gay adult, I am disgusted by Mark Foley's behavior, as are all my gay & lesbian friends! The statement by the lead LGBT lobbying group says it all:

"Gay or straight, Democrat or Republican, it is completely inexcusable for an adult to have this kind of communication with a minor. Congressman Foley brought shame on himself and this Congress by his horrible behavior and complete lack of judgment. We strongly condemn his behavior."

29

Why there is so much fear about medical privacy?

I believe it has to do with Unions. At my work we have a bargained agreement that you can call in sick for three days without a doctors note. However, if you sick longer than that, you have to have a note with an explanation. Of course, doctors never want to reveal what is wrong with their patient so they make the note very general.

There is also cases where people go on "light duty" and there are those who abuse that on want to be on "light duty" all the time. When work tries to investigate the Union goes on the attack for invading the privacy of the employee. If a Doctor has said they should be on light duty, that should be enough for the employeer.

So if this information were not private, at my work anyway, some employees might get in serious trouble for abusing the rules on sick leave and light duty.

I imagine it is similar in other jobs too.

30

E&L: "I believe it has to do with Unions."

There, but for the grace of God and a small amount of gray matter, go you or I. Give thanks, this day, that you are not hopelessly confused.

31

I'm also rather surprised at the vehement Sullivan-bashing. As has been noted, all he is saying is that having to continually lie every day of your life is an inherently corrupting situation. And it is. The more lies you have to tell, and the longer you have to keep telling them, the more divorced from reality and any kind of moral compass you can get.

Heterosexuals do not have to grow up being afraid of the fact that they are heterosexual. If you announce that "you like girls", you get patted on the head, and told "of course you do". You are not taught right from the crib that you are sexually deviant freak.

And sometimes when people just KNOW that they are going to go to HELL, because thats what they have been told all of their life, then sometimes they start to think anything is morally acceptable, because they have nothing to lose.

If you want to turn Foley into the traditional one-dimensional mustache-twirling comic-book villain, go right ahead, he's earned it. But that seems to me to be a simplistic and rather morally arrogant thing to do. What are you, Heterosexually-superior? You might want to be sure you've earned your own halo first. Especially considering just how common it is for old straight guys to go lusting after teenage girls.

In fact its considered expected behavior. If Foley were straight, while there would be outrage, it wouldn't be quite so hyped up. After all, its what old straight guys often do, espeically ones with position and power.

Your not above sin either Joe. And if you had truly walked exactly in Foley's shoe's you can't really say with 100% certainty that you would have made any better choices. No human being could.

That doesn't mean what Foley has done isn't evil, or that its excusable, but it is a human evil and everyone should try to understand it in order to avoid making similar mistakes. You do yourself and others a disservice if you don't.

And its apparent BTW, that Sullivan really gets under your skin Joe. He must be hitting some nails on the head for you to get so tweaked out about him. Really, you turn into quite the drama queen.

32

Sheesh Joe, are you really sure you want to work for Focus on the Family?

Less than a year after the man who murdered her daughter was sent to prison, on Feb. 16, 2000, Focus on the Family fired Roever, citing poor performance.

She had worked there nine years. She says that at the time she was let go, she was processing 28,000 pieces of mail a day at the ministry, a multimedia powerhouse that generates so much mail it has its own ZIP code.

Roever says that she remembers telling her supervisors, 'Guys, I'm going through something here,' but they were telling me I was screwing up.

"They acted like they were doing me a favor," she says of her firing. She received no severance pay, and no unemployment insurance.

Focus on the Family, which reported nearly $138 million in revenues last year, specializes in products designed to advise men, women and children across the globe on all aspects of family life. For example, James Dobson's 1993 bestseller, When God Doesn't Make Sense, carries this promotional snippet: "Why does disease, divorce, rejection, death or sorrow seep into our lives when we are trying to serve the Lord? Drawing on his long experience as a Christian psychologist and family counselor, Dr. James Dobson offers hope and encouragement to those who face trials and heartaches they can't understand."

33

Boonton,

The goodwill people give to their favorite writers inspite of dumb remarks lasts quite a long time. Look at the goodwill people give Joe for example and we have yet to even see a 'Golden Age of Joe' and the prospects of ever seeing one are slim at best.

Joe is an excellent writer, Boonton. As an excellent writer yourself, I'm surprised you don't realize this.

You and I strongly disagree with some things he writes. And sometimes Joe's writing is better than at other times. But he is still an excellent writer.

If I had time, I could browse his archives and link to some of his best posts. But that's not really necessary, is it? If you didn't think Joe was a good writer, even today, you wouldn't bother to respond to him, would you?

I suppose you are just reacting to Joe's criterion of "dumb remarks". I think Joe's point was that Andrew Sullivan's stance on controversial issues often lacks a minimal amount of internal consistency or logic. Regardless of whether Joe is correct about Mr. Sullivan, I don't think it's fair to say that Joe's stands lack internal consistency or logic.

If Joe says something "dumb", it's not because Joe's statement is illogical. It's because someone thinks it's "dumb" -- that is to say, someone disagrees with the statement and feels annoyed that Joe has the opinion that he has.

I do agree with you though, that we are unlikely to see a "Golden Age of Joe". Joe's writing has only gotten better with time, so there won't be any past era that will stand head and shoulders over the present.

34

Joe Carter: "I often wonder where most evangelicals get their ideas of "heaven" (certainly not from the Bible)."

Those ideas come from popular strains of historic dispensational theology, and to a lesser extent, even some interpretations of historic covenant theology have suffered from this (Really). I mentioned this book to you before, but I'm not sure if you caught my comment: The Kingdom of Christ by Russell Moore. I recommend it because it draws historical contours of what the kingdom of God has meant to different groups of Christians, and what current evangelical scholars are converging on.

Wonders for Oyarsa: "One thing to keep in mind though - if this is truly a theological treasure we as evangelicals are rediscovering, perhaps those of us in the cutting edge of the dig shouldn't look down too much on those who haven't come along yet.

Yep, thanks for that :)

35

Matthew,

Good points and thank you for the compliment. Joe is a good writer but I often find his logic internally lacking. He seems to have some quirky obsessions that cause him to throw logic and reasoning to the wind. His post on Sullivan was, in my opinion, a minor demonstration of that strange trait of his. It comes out much more when he is talking about evolution, though.

36

Yet more good Christian works from the folks at FoF.

And you complain that Sullivan is all about sex? How about Mr. Perkins, who just can't seem to shut up about it?

Jewish Reform Movement Tells Conservatives To Stop Blaming Gays For Foley Affair by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

October 4, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET
(Washington) The Reform Movement - the largest branch of Judaism in the United States - on Wednesday told a conservative Christian group to stop gay-bashing over the Foley Affair.

Following the disclosure that former Republican Congressman Mark Foley had engaged in a series of sexual emails with teenage pages, Tony Perkins, the President of the conservative Christian group the Family Research Council penned an article for the council and widely distributed by conservative groups titled “Pro-Homosexual Political Correctness Sowed Seeds for Foley Scandal.”

In a letter to Perkins Wednesday, Mark Pelavin, Associate Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, disputed Perkins' claims.

"I urge you to apologize publicly for the disturbing article you wrote," Pelavin said in an open letter to Perkins.

"We certainly agree that the actions of former Representative Foley are abhorrent and deplorable. Nonetheless, I was disturbed, but sadly, not surprised, that you used Mr. Foley’s actions to perpetuate an old and despicable stereotype that gay men are prone to be child molesters. Your willingness to manipulate this tragic situation to engage in an anti-gay screed through such spurious and twisted correlations reveals far more about you than about this crisis," Pelavin's letter said.

He went on to note that "as Jews, we know well the dangers inherent in broad, fear-inspiring accusations that blame societal ills on a particular social group. Mr. Foley, and not homosexuals as a group, performed these misdeeds. No group, homosexual or otherwise, bears responsibility. It is shameful for the Family Research Council to use one individual’s wrongdoings to cast a negative light on an entire group of people."

Now compare Perkin's screeching with the simple words of a grief-stricken Amish grandfather:

"As we were standing next to the body of this 13-year-old girl, the grandfather was tutoring the young boys, he was making a point, just saying to the family, 'We must not think evil of this man,' " the Rev. Robert Schenck told CNN.

37

Boonton,

Don't be too hard on Joe for his opposition to evolution -- even Ann Coulter comes down on the wrong side of that issue :)

Besides, if evolutionary theory is correct, then 100 years from now it will still be standing, and Joe's theories will have fallen by the wayside. At least he's not a young earther.

38

Eric Are there really a lot of Christians out there who do not know about Christ's bodily resurrection?

Sadly, yes. Casually ask the Christians around you (not necessarily the ones you go to church with, though) and I think you’ll be surprised by what you find. Most of them seem to have the impression that we become “like angels” (i.e., bodiless spirits). That’s probably not surprising when you consider that is how the afterlife is portrayed in popular culture. In fact, I can’t think of a single instance from popular books or films where heaven is portrayed as being about a bodily resurrection.

Bob Imagine if you had a sign around your neck that said, "I have cancer but it is in remission at the moment." How many employers would hire you?

That brings up an interesting point that I’d like to explore in the future. Almost all of the justifications for medical privacy seem to hinge on the fact that an employer or insurance company might use that information to their advantage. In essence, we want privacy so that we can deceive them about our condition.

Dr. Mike If Mark Driscoll can, by his cleverness and delivery, make Christ attractive and interesting while - and this is a critical qualifier - handling properly the word of truth, why should he be muzzled?

Piper is not against “cleverness” but about cleverness for its own sake. That is a fault which I believe that Driscoll is quite guilty and one that I’ve complained about myself (i.e., his comparison of 24’s Jack Bauer to Jesus).

Rusty I fail to see just what is so intriguing or astonishing about flooding a church and having people walk on individual steps across the water.

Personally, I liked the metaphoric aspect: stepping out on faith—in church--one step at a time; not sure what comes next but trusting that a path will show itself.

Patrick Your not above sin either Joe. And if you had truly walked exactly in Foley's shoe's you can't really say with 100% certainty that you would have made any better choices. No human being could.

Your complaint might have more weight if I had said something condemning about Foley. Yes, his behavior is disgusting. But I’m more concerned about the people who are willing to cover up his actions for political gain.

And its apparent BTW, that Sullivan really gets under your skin Joe. He must be hitting some nails on the head for you to get so tweaked out about him.

He doesn’t get under my skin. It just irks me that he’s treated with such respect when he’s so inconsistent and illogical. Aside from his sexuality, I can’t recall too many positions on which he hasn’t flip-flopped.
Also, aren’t you just a bit ashamed that a guy who represents some of the baser stereotypes of homosexuality is given such a platform.

Really, you turn into quite the drama queen.

I have to give you credit for that one. It’s cleverly ironic to call me a drama queen in a criticism of the drama queen exemplar. ; )

Sheesh Joe, are you really sure you want to work for Focus on the Family?

Um, no. Which is why I work for the Family Research Council.

Matthew I do agree with you though, that we are unlikely to see a "Golden Age of Joe". Joe's writing has only gotten better with time, so there won't be any past era that will stand head and shoulders over the present.

As usual, you are too kind. I wish people who agreed with me were half as laudatory as you are. ; )

39

Joe,

As usual, you are too kind. I wish people who agreed with me were half as laudatory as you are.

I usually prefer kindness to harshness, but I always strive to be perfectly honest. The truth is you are a very good writer, and a prolific one at that.

And the truth is, I agree with you much, much more often than I disagree with you. Beyond that, we are both very stubborn people about our core beliefs, yet willing to engage others and look for the best in people who don't share those beliefs.

I think that is why I feel sympatico to you despite our differences -- we are both very judgemental about reality (for example, cosmology and human nature) and about behavior, but we hesitate to judge individuals themselves. We are close-minded in a very broad-minded way :)

40

Joe: "In essence, we want privacy so that we can deceive them about our condition."

Exactly wrong. We want privacy so that people cannot use our medical information as a sledgehammer against when they discriminate or make incorrect and arbitrary assumptions. We want privacy because some things are none of their damned business!

You really don't get it, Joe. You think a job application ought to require a medical history attached to it, don't you? Maybe that's 'cause you're ex-marine, and I've met enough vets to know that most of you have no problem with spying and wiretaps and torture and any other weird crap because they did it to you in boot camp or it's part of army-navy-air force life so it should be the same for everybody.

This falls into that category. You need to think long and hard about what privacy is and to what degree we ought to be able to control personal information. Right now, you apparently have a skewed and distorted understanding of these matters.

41

Joe
He doesn’t get under my skin. It just irks me that he’s treated with such respect when he’s so inconsistent and illogical.

I think you failed to demonstrate that he is either inconsistent or illogical. As I pointed out your argument seems to be that you object to his saying that choosing a life filled with dishonesty often leads to worse things. That seems a pretty inconsistent and illogical objection for a Christian evangelical.

42

And its apparent BTW, that Sullivan really gets under your skin Joe. He must be hitting some nails on the head for you to get so tweaked out about him.

He doesn’t get under my skin. It just irks me that he’s treated with such respect when he’s so inconsistent and illogical. Aside from his sexuality, I can’t recall too many positions on which he hasn’t flip-flopped.
Also, aren’t you just a bit ashamed that a guy who represents some of the baser stereotypes of homosexuality is given such a platform.

uh no, I'm not ashamed Joe. Because he doesn't "represent....homosexuality" to me. Apparently he does to you, although I don't know why. Stereotypes are in the mind of the beholder Joe. Besides, if you wanted to "represent.....Heterosexuality", how would you go about doing it? Use Bill Clinton as an example? Its a silly idea.

Some of your criticisms are not founded in fact. He has never wavered in his support for the War in Iraq for example, he's just appalled at how poorly its been managed. And there are a lot of people who agree with him. Quite a few former Generals among them.

I would also ask if you are judging fairly on the basis of what you have read of his work. Have you read any of his books? Or just his blog?

Blog writing is inherently different from writing a book or even a magazine article. It tends to be much more of a work in progress. It where you work out ideas, get feedback on them, and possibly change your point of view, etc. Its not as declarative a statement as when you are writing a book. Blogs let you see the writing process at work, before the finished product. When Andrew has made mistakes, he does issue a mea culpa. When is the last time you heard Dobson give one of those? Even you have issued some from time to time.

Sullivan's blog is also different from yours in that he tends to update it many times daily. Its a running commentary, not a formal essay. So its not always going to be consistant. Thats more the nature of the media as he is using it, rather than a refelection of the writer. Thats true for anyone I think.

43

I think the big question really is, now that Evangelicals know that the Republican party is just as ethically corrupt, or more so, than the Democrat party, how does one morally justify giving this Caesar (Bush) their allegiance.

44

I think the big question really is, now that Evangelicals know that the Republican party is just as ethically corrupt, or more so, than the Democrat party, how does one morally justify giving this Caesar (Bush) their allegiance.

Thats an easy question to answer. They are going to do what they always do. Blame it all on the homosexuals.

The below is from Tony Perkins: FRC:

The FBI has already been asked to look at potential criminal violations by former Rep. Foley. This is good, but it will not by itself restore confidence in the House. Others, in the media and homosexual networks, also owe a public account, because they have helped turn what could have been one man's tragedy last year into this year's politics-laden "October surprise." Congress should authorize its own internal investigation, make it fully independent, and empower it to look at everything, including the role of outside groups. If we've learned anything about members of Congress gone wild, it's that they usually have plenty of "outside help."

He is already claiming that there was some sort of gay staffer cabal that covered for Foley. What a loser.

I'll bet that the main political arms of the Religious Right will do their best to overlook the issue. They want above all else, to retain power. If the Democrats win back Congress they will get shut out. So they will try to ignore Foley, as they have ignored the authorization of torture.

45

Your theory sounds very plausible!

46

That is an easy question to answer.

We Republicans have known all along that people are corrupt. At least, we Christians knew that.

It isn't a shock to us to find out that there are bad people in the world and that some of them are in the Republican party.

It is what we do about it that matters. Will we all unite together to defend those who behave like Congressman Foley did, vote against impeachment as he waves his finger at the camera and tells us all that he didn't do it as he refuses to leave office over something that is a Left Wing Conspiracy and all about sex anyway?

Or will he do the right thing and resign from office sparring us all in the process?

That's why i'm a Republican, we don't allow our bad seeds to run our party, we make them leave.

47

Steve Dilliard is right on. I don't so much vote for the Republicans, I vote against the Democrats. However, it would be nice to become excited about a presidential candidate again. I haven't felt that since Ronald Reagan.

But from what I read in the LA Times, there's a guy already running for the GOP nomination named John Cox who's a Reagan Conservative and Christian and proud of it.

In fact, he's already released TV ads in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina that sound very Reaganesque. Check it out: www.cox2008.com/video

48

That's why i'm a Republican, we don't allow our bad seeds to run our party, we make them leave.

Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, hell even Dick Morris appears to have maintained his status as a GOP favorite on Fox.

49

Dick Morris is a Democrat.

What's your problem with Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich?

50

Dick Morris was and is a Republican who briefly worked for a Democratic President. Henry Hyde had an affair with another man's wife which eventually destroyed the marriage. Gingrich had multiple extramarital affairs including House aide, Callista Bisek.

Also for the record Republican's did 'get rid' of Foley. Foley resigned from Congress after the revelations so the GOP did not have an opportunity to demonstrate whether or not they would have 'gotten rid of' their bad apple.

51

Cool--John Cox sounds like a refreshing departure from the bland "moderates" that seem to be front and center for '08. I liked what he said about immigration on his website--does anybody know where I can find other stuff on him?

52

Do you have any evidence that Morris is a Republican? I thought for certain ive heard him say he is a Democrat.

As for Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich, I think that is horrible. I will not vote for a single Republican again until both of those two are out of the House of Reps. The same goes for the Democrats, I will not vote for a single Democrat until Barny Frank, William Jefferson and Ted Kennedy are no longer serving.

I also think you misunderstood my point about Foley. He resigned because he knows as well as you or I that we Republican (Not the politicians but the voters) would not vote him back in to office after this. If he were a Democrat, i'm sure he wouldn't have needed to resign, as no crime has been committed.

53

If that was the case then why did NJ Gov. Jim McGreevey resign after revealing he was gay and had an affair with a man he tried to make head of security? In that case there wasn't even any improper behavior towards minors in question.

Perhaps Republicans would have voted Foley out but we will never really know likewise he very well might have resigned not because he would have been expelled by Republicans but because he could not bear both the scrutiny of the scandal and the pressure of trying to hold onto an office at the same time.

For Hyde there never was any revolt of Republicans when it was revealed he had played the part of a homewrecker. In fact I recall quite a few who claimed it was a 'personal matter' and cared more to investigate how the story make it into the press. For Gingrich he kept his affair with an employee secret during the Clinton impeachment but before that there were plenty of stories of his marital issues. Most famous was his serving his first wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital with cancer. I doubt these things would cause Gingrich any significant loss if he choose to run for office again.

54

Boonton wrote;

If that was the case then why did NJ Gov. Jim McGreevey resign after revealing he was gay and had an affair with a man he tried to make head of security?

That is a very interesting way to ask that question. Ask it again without making it sound like he was hiring a body guard and you will have your answer.

55

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

56

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

57

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

58

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

59

Visit my webpage!!

60

Visit my webpage!!

61

Visit my webpage!!

62

Visit my webpage!!

63

Visit my webpage!!

64

Visit my webpage!!

65

Visit my webpage!!

66

Visit my webpage!!

67

Visit my webpage!!

68

Visit my webpage!!

69

Visit my webpage!!

70

Visit my webpage!!

71

Visit my webpage!!

72

Visit my webpage!!

73

Visit my webpage!!

74

Visit my webpage!!

75

Hello
cheap dell computer
mapquest satellite view
corporate corporation from information intel
dell m1210 xps
dell d610 laptop
aol music nickelback
battery computer dell laptop
dell laptop hard drive
wilderness wisconsin dells
aol country music video