Leviticus, General Petraeus, & Elton John

Introduction

Even though I am a Buddhist, I offer the following essay in an attempt to make some useful comments about the book in the Bible known as Leviticus. Specifically, I hope to inspire debate concerning how Leviticus bans homosexual relationships. But first, I want to offer a few biblical observations above and beyond Leviticus. These should serve as food for thought, my attempt to prep you (i.e., soften you up) for what follows.


Food for thought

ONE:  Before the Creation, there was only God, and He was perfect. After the Creation, sin arose; therefore, God created sin. Or maybe the pre-Creation God wasn't perfect, and His action of creation was an attempt to take His imperfections and place them outside of Himself, to reside (as it were) in that which He created which of course was not part of Himself.

TWO:  When the Creation is described in Genesis, these words are used several times: "[and God saw] that it was good." But then He shifts gears after the Creation is completed to say: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." But He didn't say: "...and, behold, it was holy [or worthy of a God, or even [only] the greatest of all that could have been created]." If I had been there, standing behind God as He said "that it was good" at various stages of the Creation, I would have asked, calling over His shoulder, "Compared to what?"

THREE:  We speak of the Gift of Life. But obviously this "gift" was given to something that was not yet alive. It was given to inanimate matter which, nonetheless, was part of God's Creation, a Creation which He declared was "very good." Once alive, however, sin and damnation become possible. After which the sinner might well long for his original state of being before he was given the "gift" of life. Also, this gift could not be appreciated until it had been bestowed. This seems to indicate that being alive brings with it an appreciation of this status. Rather than "appreciation," I would call it a prejudice.

        Of course, Buddhists sidestep this by regarding everything in the universe as not only being alive but also having the potential of attaining Buddhahood. I hasten to add: By "being alive," I don't mean merely having the potential of manifesting life but that life force itself is already contained within everything ranging from stars to atoms.

FOUR:  When Moses first brought the Ten Commandments to the Jews, he destroyed the tablets upon which they were written by God Himself. And Moses did this out of anger at the idolatrous behavior he saw his tribesmen engaging in. To me this is strange, since Moses had no way of knowing God would give him a replacement set. Let's be very clear about this: Moses took it upon himself, in a fit of anger, to destroy something holy (that is, written by God Himself) which was intended by God to be given to the Jews. That should call into question Moses's claim to leadership, and cause all of us to gravely question just exactly who he was.

FIVE:  Here I quote the Second Commandment:

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children of the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Based on that first sentence, what are we supposed to do? Destroy all statues in all of the art museums of the world, since they are "carved images?" Destroy all paintings of persons, places, or things since they are "likeness[es] of anything that is...[on?] the earth beneath?" To be sure, the second sentence merely tells us not to "bow down to them or serve them." But that doesn't tell us we can't appreciate their beauty.


General Petraeus

There are haters out there who quote Leviticus to show that God (to put it mildly) disapproves of homosexuality. However, I doubt these same people would urge that General Petraeus be put to death for his adulterous affair with Paula Broadwell who, also according to Leviticus, should also be put to death. If someone is going to cite Leviticus, they shouldn't be allowed to cherry pick, while ignoring passages that could harm a great American patriot. From Leviticus Chapter 20 (KJV):

[13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[10] And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


Bishop Gene Robinson

Gene Robinson was elevated to the rank of Bishop by the Episcopal Church in the United States, as the result of votes taken by laity and clergy. This was done with all parties being aware of Robinson's active and declared homosexuality.

A few weeks ago, on Channel 11 (WTTW) in Chicago, I saw a late night special on this man. And I admit to being impressed by what I saw. However, also featured was a lay woman who was eligible to vote on whether gay marriage ceremonies should be allowed in Episcopalian churches in the US. Tearfully, she had to say no because it seemed to violate scripture (that is, Leviticus). After the special was over, I realized that nobody had attempted to address the Levitican prohibition. That is, no one tried to reinterpret what was "really" meant by Leviticus 20:13 (cited above).

But, to be fair, neither did that crying woman insist that Gene Robinson be put to death. To be consistent, she should have, considering this is what Lev. 20:13 commands.

I do, however, believe that the Episcopalians, at least as reflected in this TV program, did not address what seems to be a no-doubt-about-it Biblical prohibition. And I fault them for this oversight.


Sir Elton John, the Abominable(?)

Time out: The definition of abomination:  Something that causes extreme disgust and hatred or loathing.

Elton John has been one of the most enduring figures in pop music for four decades, having sold 250 million records. I dare say, when his fans go to see him in concert, they're not thinking, "There's a faggot who should be stoned to death." They do not feel the sense of abomination which Leviticus would freely bestow.  I, for one, don't feel this sense toward him or toward anyone else for that matter.

In fact, given the fact that Elton John was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II should surely indicate that she didn't find him to be an "abomination." So I have to wonder: "If the Queen, Elton John's fans, and all others who are accepting of gays are supposedly created in God's image (and therefore sharing God's values) don't find all gays to be abominations, how did we all manage to drift so far from the spirit of Leviticus?"

Was that spirit, at least insofar as gays are concerned, an abomination?  Specifically, a reflection of the prejudices of Moses who felt he could add his own laws, while claiming they came from God? Maybe people are coming to see what a fraud Moses was? After all, we're far more accepting of gays than ever before, even allowing them to get married in some states and countries. It's easy to hate what we don't understand. But as we got to know gays, directly or indirectly, we could see they were capable of love for each other. And that is what became important, rather that Moses's personal opinion.


Dealing with scripture

Rule # 1: Just because "it is written" doesn't bestow validity.

In my own tradition as a Buddhist, it is written that the Buddha never lies. However, within what he claims to be his foremost teaching (The Lotus Sutra), there are several instances in which he did lie - and obviously so. He had asked his disciples in more or less these words, after offering these lies, "Can it be said that I have been guilty of telling a lie?" To which his disciples answered, No. However, it is obvious to me that he did lie and, most importantly, expected his disciples to call him on this. No teacher worthy of the title expects his disciples to always go along with him; dissent is expected and is necessary for the attainment of Buddhahood for the disciples.

I make this claim after having read aloud the entire Lotus Sutra (Burton Watson's 326-page English translation) well over 150 times. Perhaps I am wrong in my conclusions, but I am more than ready to present my case to any who would disagree.

My spiritual practice and resulting views have caused me to declare: "I am now a member of a Buddhist sect that has exactly one member and one leader - and they are one and the same - which would be me. And I'm not recruiting."

The Buddha spoke of acquiring wisdom that comes of itself, teacherless wisdom, which is to me something that far transcends scripture. Anyone who acquires even a piece of this wisdom is entirely free to discard any scripture that contradicts this universal wisdom. Go for it!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for U.S. President in 2008 and 2012
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party

"If we're to advance spiritually, we have to call our leaders to a higher standard - and that includes patriarchs past and present" - Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Obama won: Some reflections

Barack Obama won and gets to serve a second term. So, we've got the same set-up now as we've had for the past four years:  The GOP controls the House, and the Democrats control the Senate and the presidency. And the fiscal cliff is that much closer, though we're hearing a little talk on both sides about trying to tackle that in a more bipartisan spirit.

To be honest, I have no idea how our lawmakers are going to tackle this issue. I will offer one possibility: They won't reach agreement and we will go over that cliff, after which they'll pass a series of bandaid bills in an attempt to limit the damage.

Maybe President Obama should ask Mitt Romney to serve as a Special Assistant to the President. In that role, perhaps he could be a liaison between POTUS and the GOP House. I'm not saying Romney's role would be to sell Obama's approach to the fiscal cliff. But he could sit with Boehner and his leadership and be (at first) a good listener to whom Boehner et al could speak. After all, Romney was the GOP standard bearer, so it's hard to imagine he'd be refused an audience or be received indifferently.

An additional role for Romney would tap his business acumen by allowing him to chair a think tank of other CEOs which he would hand-pick. One of Mitt's biggest selling points was his claim that he could form a business plan to get this country's economy back on its feet. However, I never felt that he had more than an intuitive notion on how to proceed; that is, his plan lacked detail. One big reason for that was, he lacked the resources and information only POTUS could access. One cannot make a plan impacting the entire nation's economy without as much back-up data as possible. The number-cruncher in Mitt Romney surely knows that.


As for my earlier predictions

I wish to address two earlier predictions I'd made:

• Barack Obama would win by a landslide, allowing Democrats to retake the House;
• Barack Obama would have ordered a military strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities, specifically allowing Israel to stand down so we could go it alone, before Labor Day.

My first prediction was based on my second having come to pass. I had written earlier that Team Obama was confident of at least winning the presidency. However, the rationale for my second prediction was that Obama needed some kind of electrifying event to challenge the Party of No's grip on the House.

So why didn't Obama attack Iran? Quite simply, he was denied permission. Even though POTUS is supposed to be the most powerful man on earth, even he is under the firm control of a Shadow Elite. They are in charge; he is not. Arguably, that Elite might have decided much more is to be gained by using Iran as the guinea pig for cyber warfare experiments. That's only my guess, but surely it can sometimes be more profitable to toy with an enemy than to throw bombs at him.

I do not regret having mentioned my second prediction within the text of my political contract*. I was that sure Obama would order an attack. Of course, had he done so, I would have had bragging rights which could have drawn attention to the terms of my presidential contract. By that means, I was hoping to bring those terms and the unique concept of political contracting to the attention of the general public. I took a calculated risk and failed, but one cannot eventually succeed if one is afraid to take chances.


The Definition of Insanity

Insanity Defined: "Using the same approach to solve a problem after seeing it had failed the first time, and expecting a different result the second time." We the People decided it would be just lovely to reelect the President and have the House and Senate each controlled by the same party as before. Yeah, like that's gonna work.

As I'd written extensively on this blog, we can only make progress once we elect independents to Congress and have that Congress reassert its Constitutionally primary role in our governance, which has been eroded by the Imperial Presidency. I still stand by this.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party

"For you who think the beat must go on, consider listening to a different drummer."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Almsgiving by a Cancerian

I titled today's post "Almsgiving by a Cancerian." I doubt there's such a word, but I am the Cancerian being referred to. I define "Cancerian" as "one who currently has cancer." I don't narrow my definition by specifying whether the cancer is being treated or is terminal or is being mentally (or otherwise) fought by the host. My last post shared my discovery of my cancer. Frankly? I felt so sick, I didn't think I would ever write again. But lately I've been feeling better - in fact, well enough to go outside for a half-hour walk yesterday after more than a month of limited mobility more or less confined to the home of a dear friend. [Exception: I did have to go out for chemotherapy, but my legs could barely carry me.]

I'm glad I feel well enough to write today, since sharing my thoughts at some risk to my personal safety is my primary form of almsgiving. And that's one of the core concepts of the Buddhism that I practice. Sometimes I wonder if the writings that I offer are embraced by anybody or if I'm just sending my vibe out into empty space. Sometimes I feel that I don't have anything almsworthy to give. However, I am encouraged by something the Buddha said, in more or less these words: "Don't ever feel you're too poor to offer alms. If nothing else, you can offer a smile to a stranger." Consider what follows to be my "smile" to you.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Here are three brief comments I posted on the internet recently:

ONE:

"The United States is a nation..." No it isn't; it's a union of 50 nations, a fact reflected in its name. If you doubt this, I ask: What part of United States don't you understand? Of course, if we truly wanted to become one nation, a few changes would have to be made including renaming the entity. I suggest simply called it America. Why not? We call ourselves (though inaccurately) Americans anyway.

We have a certain schizophrenia because of trying to simultaneously regard ourselves as one entity and a collection of 50. If we make the transition to America, then we wouldn't have to worry about who's going to pay for natural disasters like Sandy. That is, if disaster strikes one part of America, all of America responds. That's surely better than nonsense like how much of the burden should a "state" bear versus how much for the "feds." Not to mention the economically counterproductive scenario of each state competing for business against its neighbors by offering tax breaks. In that case, you have 50 states trying to knock each other out. Tell me, how does that offer unity?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"If we don't start thinking outside the box, we shall surely be buried in one."

TWO:

As I sit in the theater watching this movie ["Lincoln," starring Daniel Day-Lewis], I'll be thinking about something most 2nd amendment fanatics won't: The War of Secession (no such thing as "The Civil War" - God, who comes up with these misnomers?) is the greatest example we have of how the right to bear arms in order to fight tyranny failed us. The South wanted to secede in the name of self-determination, the tyrannical central government said "no, you're to stay unionized against your will," and even though southerns had their guns and fought against that government, they lost.

Lesson? For the militiamen out there hoarding arms to fight the feds when the stuff hits the fan, the result will be exactly the same. So I laugh when I hear about having the right to keep and bear arms will be a check against excessive central government power.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"About all that the resistance will be able to do is defend against looters when the Apocalypse comes and then commit suicide just before they're to be led off to a concentration camp. Think I'm kidding?"

THREE:

If you think Mitt Romney's the anti-christ, consider this about Hurricane Sandy being an act of God with one intention: to derail Romney. As a result of Sandy, Obama got to look presidential, the talking heads focused more on this natural disaster at the cost of reducing campaign coverage, and "converted" a powerful detractor (Chris Christie) into a virtual supporter. Of course, Mitt might still win. If indeed he is the anti-Christ, he'll have a few tools in his kit. If Mitt loses (and is the anti-Christ), it will be interesting to see what he does next.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"Sandy was called a perfect storm; I'll go along with that for the reasons given above."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

THREE deserves clarification, especially of its last sentence, "Sandy...above." I'm not saying by that that Mitt Romney is the Anti-Christ. However, I do believe him to be a malevolent force who would work against the Enlightenment of the people. I also believe that Superstorm Sandy was sent by something the Japanese call Shoten Zenjin (protective forces or entities) to sabotage Mitt Romney. If Romney should, in spite of this, manage to win this election, be very sure the Shoten Zenjin will be giving him a very rough ride for the next four years.

Someone commented on THREE saying, "I think you're the Anti-Christ. I'm on my way to put a dagger in your heart." Sounds like something a warped gamer would say, though I was hoping he (or someone else) would have said, "Maybe Sandy was sent by the Devil to undermine Romney, who represents decency, morality, and our best chance for effective governance." But...nobody said any such thing.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I'm going to close with something I heard from (I believe) an old James Brown song:

"There was a time,
when I used to dance.
There was a time,
when I used to prance.
I might not do the dance like I used to do.
But you bet your bottom dollar,
I can still get down and holler,
I do the best that I can do."

I like to think I can "still get down and holler."

Best wishes, my friends,

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party

"In a song about getting old, Highlands by Bob Dylan, there's a line: 'and there's less and less to say.' I'm finding that I have more and more to say as I get older. I hope at least some of it is worthy of your attention."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com [although nobody has ever done so].