Posts Tagged ‘women’

Naomi is the Answer

June 12, 2017

Many people believe the Bible is a book of answers. If so, is there an answer to our troubled nation? There are many rules in the Jewish Bible regarding hospitality to the stranger, the foreigner, the other. There are many references to the sins of Sodom and all are about inhospitality to outsiders. In the Christian Bible (Matt. 25:43) Jesus said, “I was a stranger and you did not invite me in.” Therefore, you are doomed to the same eternity as Satan and his angels.
However, those scriptures have shallow roots and few seeds. Maybe a story would be more fruitful.
Because of famine, a Judean family moves to Moab as economic refugees. Does God have an attitude toward Moab? Yes. According to a Psalmist, “Moab will be my chamber pot,” God declared, because they were inhospitable to the Hebrews. (Ps. 60:8) In Moab, Naomi and her husband raise two sons who marry Moabite women. That is a violation of the Mosaic law that forbids Jews allowing sons or daughters to marry outsiders (Deut. 7:3)
In time Naomi’s husband and her two sons die. Naomi decides to return to Judea and tells her daughters-in-law to return to the homes of their mothers. Women had few choices in those days.
One of the widows returns to her mother’s home hoping to be invited in. The other, Ruth, tells Naomi, “Your people will be my people.” Ruth was not an economic refugee. She was trying to keep the family together. Nevertheless, to be politically correct Naomi should have said, “No. My people are exceptional people and you cannot be one of us.” (Gen. 17:7)
Ruth also said, “Your God will be my God.” To be religiously correct, Naomi should have said, “No. No Moabite should ever be admitted into the assembly of God.” (Neh. 13:1) Because Naomi was not politically or religiously correct, Naomi and Ruth return to Judea where Ruth meets Boaz, a relative of Naomi. Boaz was not politically or religiously correct either and the rest is a love story with a religious and cultural convert becoming an ancestor of King David, the glory of Israel, and Jesus the Savior of Christians.
Although the story is set in the time of the Judges, many Christian scholars tend to believe the Books of Ruth and Jonah were written in reaction to the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah that chronicle the return of the Judeans from Babylonian captivity. When they saw the desolation of Jerusalem, they vowed to make Judea great again.                                 First order of business: National Security. Rebuild the wall.
Second order of business: Tribal Cleansing. Ezra called for an assembly in Jerusalem.          Those who did not assemble would lose their property and be exiled. Those who did assemble were told they must separate from those unclean. (Ezra 10: 7-11) To be religiously correct, the returning captives rejected their wives, some of them likely pregnant, and their children. The Bible doesn’t tell us what happened to the wives and children but we know. We read it in the newspaper every day.
Perhaps Naomi’s way was the better way, the way our nation should go.

Pro Life Pretenders

January 27, 2017

Charles Camosy, Professor of Ethics in Fordham’s Theology Department, chided Sister Simone Campbell, spokesman for “Nuns on the Bus”, for calling “Pro-Life” proponents “Pro-Birth”. Once a baby is born it’s abandoned to the mercy of air, water, food and environment polluters and other merchants that put profit before life..

According to Reuters (7-14-05) Unborn US babies “are soaking in a stew of chemicals,” including mercury, according to a report by the Environmental Working Group based on tests of umbilical cord blood that reflects what the mother passes to the baby through the placenta. That stew of 287 chemicals includes 180 that cause cancer in humans, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests. A Government Accountability Office report said the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the powers it needs to fully regulate toxic chemicals. “Pro-Life Pretenders” is the more accurate name for those want to weaken or eliminate the EPA.

Professor Camosy wants a Catholic religious (sharia) law to become a federal law that favors the “most vulnerable” but denies religious freedom to others. Dr. Camosy believes the most vulnerable in a pregnancy is a zygote (fertilized egg) although more than half of zygotes are not implanted. That 50+ percent would be the most vulnerable of the “vulnerable” because have no possibility of life. Yet, no one. including Camosy, proposes any effort to save them. They receive no religious rites and are treated as body waste without protest. Are they to be favored over a family? The mother loses her life, the children lose their mother and the father loses his wife. The family seems most vulnerable to me.

A nun suggested a federal law requiring a father to donate a kidney in exchange for a kidney for his fetus, baby or child should it require one. That seems a good law. The baby, fetus, child is clearly most vulnerable. Most fathers can live an ordinary life with one kidney and he would have some skin in the law. The law would be less prejudiced if the father were required to donate whatever could be transplanted—heart, lungs, liver, skin. So far, no Pro-Life Pretenders in politics, ethics or religion have made any effort to include the father in protecting the “most vulnerable.”

If it’s about “life” or “most vulnerable” which is more vulnerable, the father or the mother?

Guns R God

February 18, 2011

I am a hunter, a gun owner, a Marine, an evangelical Christian, a native of Texas where the Land Commissioner believes a bullet is the best answer, and I have been married to the same woman for 57 years. Guys like me have a lot to fear. Without guns we would be as incidental as women, as superfluous as Palestinians. Guys like me pledge allegiance to one nation, divisible, under guns with all the liberty and justice you can hang on to with AK-47s and cop-killer bullets.

We fear losing profits. We don’t make guns but we can make money with guns. Sure, you can hold up a pick-and-pack store and scrounge a few bucks if you pack heat but you can sell a gun to someone who holds up banks and pick up a few hundred bucks. You can make thousands if you buy high velocity, rapid-fire guns and sell them to the Mexican mafia or the mentally disarranged or terrified CEOs defending their bonuses, stock options, golden parachutes, personal corporate-owned luxury cars, jet airplanes, condos in Paris, resorts in Tahiti, penthouses in Vienna and air-conditioned tents in Saudi Arabia.

The value of guns appreciates quickly, especially if you create fear with a whimper campaign quoting the oil industry’s favorite pseudo-scientist that today the sky is four and a-tad-more-than-one-eighth inches lower than it was when Christians discovered gunpowder and Leviticus. Man, that’s scary. Shoot up the sky!

Even scarier than losing profits is paying taxes. We demand a powerful military, safe streets, the world’s best schools, heavily-subsidized capitalism, superior communication and transportation systems and we want others to pay for it. We want the Ten Commandments in court rooms, not board rooms. We want entitlement to protection from those we have injured and killed, to tax shelters and tax write-offs, to Enron-inspired market self-policing, and Lehman Brothers virtuoso performance. If tobacco kills enough people consumers won’t use it. If enough people die eating contaminated  people will stop eating meat. If car rollovers kill enough people, people will stop buying cars, if the courts don’t seal the records at the request of the car makers. If wings fall off enough airplanes then customers will pick other airplanes in which to fly. If advertisers mislead consumers long enough consumers will no longer pay to be duped. But the federal government wants to police the market rather than our bedrooms. That can happen if the feds register our guns. Or limits our firepower.

Even scarier than taxes are women. Trust me. I have one. Women are getting closer to equality and control of their own bodies and without guns a man is helpless to defend himself, his family or his job from women who compete on an almost level field. The best defense against liberated women is a shotgun, at least twelve gauge with a minimum of two shots; six is better as they are harder to kill than entitlements for the rich.

Scarier than women are Muslims. Or those who look like Muslims, dress like Muslims, think like Muslims, act like Muslims, could be Muslims, have un-American names, or wish to build a community center near a sacred site, like your back yard or a nearby state. I recommend a sniper rifle because there aren’t many and you can pick them off one at a time.

Scarier than Muslims are brown people. There are so many of them. And they work so hard. And they earn so little. And they are so close. For protection from them you need quad .50s or better to keep them from over-running your garbage cans.

Scarier than brown people are black people. Man, they are just scary. Even little black children are scary. And they are infiltrating private schools the same way they did public schools, and government offices, legislatures, Congress, even churches. This will require bombs. There will be collateral damage but that’s what bombs are best known for.

Scarier than black people are gays. And they want the same lifestyle as you. They want family. They want to have children. They want to be your relative. They want to go to your church. They want to go to your heaven. They want to be your friend. The only way to keep them at a distance is to strap a claymore mine to your chest. You can place it either way for the same effect. When they close in on you, just trigger the detonator. You will never be scared again.