Judgement

Just reading a post on Facebook related to gay characters on Star Trek. The author claims that Star Trek is no longer a family show because of the emergence of so many gay characters/story lines and the fact that actors like Zachary Quinto have come out. Of course the justification for this line of "reasoning" is..... you guessed it! The Bible.

I've always had a fundamental problem with the notion that the Bible literally represents the word of God. I don't know about you, but in my experience translation from one language to another often results in a loss of basic concept, if not entire meaning. The Bible is a collection of stories that began by being passed from person to person in an oral tradition. Eventually the stories were written down, after much interpretation by various scholars. Over the years passages were rewritten to reflect the ideology of the day.

This reminds me of the game "telephone". To play "telephone", a group of people sit in a circle. The first person is given a statement and told to whisper it to his neighbour. This continues until the last individual is asked to tell the group what he just heard. Hilarity ensues when the end statement bears absolutely no resemblance to the original.

Now I don't know how much of the original text of the Bible managed to survive the myriad tellings, retellings, writings, rewritings and translations that it was subjected to over the centuries. Perhaps most of it made it unscathed. I am willing to bet, however, that one or two things were lost in translation. Just look at Leviticus for some questionable passages describing the punishments that await those who do not observe certain prescriptions and proscriptions. If you believe that man shall not lie with another man as he shall with a woman, you'd better be prepared to eat the flesh of your sons as well as your daughters. And that's just for starters.

I am not a religious person, but I can't believe that "the holy word of God" was ever intended to be used as a weapon to divide people. Use the Bible as a moral guide if you like, but don't be so damn literal!

NRA Video

When I first started this blog, it was with the intention of commenting on a number of topics. However, I keep coming back to the issue of gun control in the US because, quite frankly, the rhetoric is pissing me off.

The NRA's recent video accuses President Obama of elitism because his kids receive protection from guards while in school.

Ridiculous!

 The President of the United States is a target to those who would bring down the government. By extension, his family is also a target. If anyone needs a reminder of that fact, think the assassinations of Garfield, McKinley, Lincoln and JFK. Not to mention the assassination attempts: Jackson, Roosevelt (Franklin and Theodore), Truman, Ford and Reagan.

The average school-age child is not a target of political extremists. The fact that many are shot by their class-mates is only further evidence of the need to get guns out of the hands of kids. To argue that the President of the United States is an elitist for protecting his children from terrorists is akin to saying he should fly economy while visiting foreign countries. It makes no sense to expose him or his family to that much risk.

So if the NRA wants to put armed guards/police into every school, who are they protecting the kids from? It's not Al-Qaeda, so it must be from regular citizens who would live, and die, for the Second Amendment.

More about the gun issue

I just responded to a Facebook friend who is pro-Second Amendment:

"Perhaps I am coming across as smug, given that I am Canadian. In my country we do not have the same sense of entitlement when it comes to fire-arms, and so far it has served us fairly well. The "right to bear arms" is simply not part of the lexicon. Although we also have random shootings, I believe that our problems are far less complex than those in the U.S. Having said that, guns don't have an "I take it back" clause attached to them. If a disagreement escalates to an argument and then a full-blown fight, those involved usually have options, such as walking away, apologizing, or getting thrown in jail. But at least they are alive to reflect on what happened. Once the bullet is fired, that's it. And therein lies the basis of my argument: a gun delivers the final response. There are NO second chances. So if America is able to live with the cost of arming the civilian population - and by cost I mean examples like Columbine and Sandy Hook - then by all means, arm yourselves to the teeth. I happen to believe that the price is too high."

Weighing in on the current gun control debate

"A nation can defend itself by means of a well-trained military. I do not understand how a country can justify a constitution which allows assault rifles to end up in the hands of teenagers. I am tired of hearing the argument that the right to bear arms is guaranteed - full stop. Surely if there is a will to change, a country as advanced as the United States of America can at least entertain the notion of opening up the Constitution to scrutiny. The Amendment is over 200 years old. The world has changed."