News Weakly - 7/28/18

Slippery Slope Fallacy
I have often said that the slippery slope fallacy -- "If you do X, then Y will happen" -- is not a fallacy if it actually happens. Like what could possibly go wrong by putting a guy who believes he's a girl into a women's prison? "Don't be silly. That's the slippery slope fallacy. That wouldn't happen." Except it did.

Missing the Point
A new Arizona law took effect July 1st. This new law requires that embryos (the fertilized eggs that are the product of IVF) be given to the spouse (or ex-spouse) who plans to use them to have a baby. Apparently the law is about "embryos are life" and that sort of thing, but no one is getting it. Those in favor say it supports a partner's rights to his or her embryos. Those opposed say it will force people to become parents against their will. (Because, after all, they didn't willfully engage in fertilizing those eggs, right?) An attorney for an ex-husband whose ex-wife would benefit from this law complains, "You are hoping to move on and you've got an ex who is essentially asking you to impregnate them and have this lingering lifelong tie with them." Mean old ex-wife.

Of course, nowhere in the story is the mention that babies are involved. And nowhere in the law is there protection for babies who are not wanted. "neither of you want these? Fine ... flush 'em." The article did say, "Some abortion rights advocates also have concerns the law is aimed at establishing the 'personhood' of unborn embryos, which they say could have consequences for women's reproductive rights." That's right. Because they cannot demonstrate that these are not an early stage of what is clearly human, so they allow for the murder of "non-person humans" and don't want that terminated.

Unclear on the Concept
So, Iran warns the U.S., "Don't mess with us. Peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, but war with Iran is the mother of all wars." Fine. Bluster. Put that on "ignore". Not the leader of the free world. Trump tweeted, "SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE." He put it in all caps. Really, Mr. President? Threatening war because a tiny Middle East country made a stupid comment?

Don't worry. He wasn't done. On the very heels of that little fiasco, the news comes out that the president seeks to tell the States what they can and cannot do about their own environmental standards. Like it or not, California has some high standards for eliminating pollution and such. Trump wants to tell them they can't do that. Mr. President, please read the Constitution. It might save you some embarrassment. The 10th Amendment states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." End of story.

There You Have It
So, the New York Times has finally done it. They've broken the story about how that nasty book of Leviticus that has been in Bibles for literally thousands of years is actually a fraud. No, seriously. Well, at least the singular most offensive texts of the day -- those prohibitions of homosexual sex.

Apparently really bright scholars have reported in the journal Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel (Vol 6, Number 4) that it is likely that the earliest texts of Leviticus sanctioned same-sex intercourse rather than forbidding it. Now, understand, this is premised absolutely on a concept that Jesus or the writers of the New Testament were not aware of -- that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the Bible. Oh, no. As we all know, "Leviticus was created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer." And "many scholars" are quite sure that the Leviticus 18 and 20 texts were added or altered maybe 100 years after the original ... likely by some homophobic scribe. (I thought it was interesting that these "scholars" did not try the somewhat popular approach that "They were referring to idolatrous sex, not loving same-sex relationships." The author of the piece believed it was abundantly clear that the text in Leviticus clearly forbade same-sex intercourse. He simply intended to show that it shouldn't be in there.)

Now, there are a lot of directions you can go with this. "What makes you so sure it was changed?" "No evidence at all!" "Why didn't Jesus know about this?" "If this was changed, what else was changed?" "Why has no one ever figured this out until modern pro-LGBTQx 'scholars' showed up?" "Can we throw out the rest of the biblical sexual rules?" And more. But there is a bottom line here. If it is true that Leviticus (or any other book) was changed, specifically to say the opposite of what God intended (as opposed to a numerical typo, for instance), then we're done. By "done" I mean we don't have a definitive text, we don't have "God's Word," we don't have a "source code," we don't have an authoritative book. It is now "whatever you think" and, bottom line, not in any way a knowable or believable "Christianity" at all. Which, in the final analysis, is the point. Don't miss that. This isn't a kindly attempt to get us a better text; it is an attempt to eliminate God's Word and God's authority.

Behind the Curtain
New York Governor Cuomo has started advertizing for abortion -- to make it State law that women can kill their babies (in case some new, fictional Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade). At the same time, he pardoned several illegal immigrants guilty of other crimes to help them avoid deportation specifically as an attack on Trump's " policies that rip children out of the arms of their mothers." Because the official policy is "rip 'em from their wombs, but not from their arms." Or "Children are only children when we say they are. Pay no attention to that double standard behind the curtain!"

(The truth, of course, is that the governor is trying to "steal the hearts of the people" away from gubernatorial challenger, Cynthia Nixon, who would love to move New York closer to socialism. She is a self-identified lesbian and a "democratic socialist".)

Orwellian
In a stunning rule of a nation's thinking over the rest of the world, China this week forced U.S. airlines to change their terminology on their web pages to remove all references to "Taiwan." In classic 1984 "newspeak" tradition where thoughts can be controlled by controlling language, China demanded that all references to Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Macau be listed as a single nation, symbolically forcing Taiwan to be part of China rather than independent. China already refuses diplomatic relations with any country that recognizes the Republic of China (ROC) as a valid government against the wishes of China -- the People's Republic of China (PRC). The airlines -- Delta, American, and United -- changed their websites saying it was merely a word change, but China recognizes it as a symbolic victory of the PRC over the ROC -- and if you don't agree, there will be consequences. (Sound familiar?)

This Means War
The social-media-sphere was angry when they found out that Barcelona's soccer teams -- men's and women's -- both flew to the U.S. together, but the men had business class while the women had economy. Outrageous! Women treated as second class (or is economy third-class?)! Except the women pointed out that the whole trip was planned last minute and "there simply were not enough business class seats on the plane once the women's team joined the tour." Alexia Putellas of the women's team said that "the women's team had been added to the tour at a later date." The women from the team are defending the action and the organization, but it won't matter. Social media outrage is all that matters and this means war!