Like Button

Friday, April 04, 2014

Irony Defined

Irony: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning. Usually it's humorous. Sometimes not. As in the story of Mozilla co-founder CEO Brendan Eich who resigned under fire because he was outed as having donated $1000 to the Prop 8 campaign in California. You remember, the campaign to keep marriage as marriage. Mozilla has apologized for Eich and GLAAD is satisfied, saying, "Mozilla’s strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all."

And that, dear readers, is irony. It's irony when someone loses their job for taking a position and that is referred to as "inclusive" or "safe" or "welcoming". It's is irony when one side says of another that the damage done to their opponent's welfare is "inclusive, safe, and welcoming" at all. And "equality" extends only as far as GLAAD's nose (and the noses of those who agree with them), it seems, because they should be protected, but those who disagree should not ... and that's "equality". Irony. Apparently, excluding and removing someone who disagrees is "equality" and "inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all" ... as long as "all" means "those who agree with us" and not those who don't.

20 comments:

Naum said...

Imagine if Brendan Eich would have contributed $1000 to overturning Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Stan said...

This is a fine example of the "false dilemma" fallacy. You're drawing a parallel between interracial marriage and Prop 8. Consider the facts.

1. There is no moral component in being in a particular race.
2. There is nothing in the longstanding, traditional, historical definition of marriage that precludes interracial marriage.
3. There is nothing in Scripture that makes interracial marriage a sin.
4. "Homosexual" is not race.

Thus, there is no parallel and it is no dilemma.

Having said all that, the question wasn't about whether or not his contribution was good or bad, but about the ludicrous claim that the removal of those who disagree is classified as "equality" and "inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all." It is simply not true. It is ... irony.

Danny Wright said...

No tolerance there.

Stan said...

No tolerance, no equality, no inclusiveness, no safety, no welcoming, at least, not to all.

Danny Wright said...

I've been giving this some thought, especially given Naum's interjected fallacy. The question I keep asking is: where does morality come from if not from scripture? Naum has clearly rejected scripture, as has every other atheist I have encountered. This is a sticky question to say the least, but the general consensus, at least as far as I can tell, is that it comes from consensus. But Prop. 8 defies that notion because the majority vote went clearly in favor of traditional marriage. It actually took judges to overturn the consensus of the people. But where did that judge go to determine the "right" way to go; other than his own preconceived notions?

Naum said...

1. No, it's not a "false dilemma". To an LGBT brother or sister, it is the equivalent of Loving v. Virginia, denying the humanity of somebody.

2. Actually, for most of modern history, Christians did indeed interpret scripture as sanctioning slavery and in defense of laws against interracial marriage. As Mark Noll, preeminent evangelical scholar, wrote: Nowhere in the world as of 4 January 1861 was the Bible freer and more open to the public than in the United States of America; nowhere did less authority from tyrants, prelates, or priests constrict the meanings that ordinary men and women took from the Bible; and nowhere in the world did more pious believers hold that the Holy Scriptures sanctioned the institution of slavery. Those insisted on anachronistic, wooden literal interpretation held sway that the Bible did indeed bless the institution of slavery, despite the fact that most moderns consider that to be an abhorrent truth.

3. Discrimination is discrimination, be it on race, sex, or sexual orientation. Seriously, in 50+ years, people will look back aghast at how so many could deny equality based on sexual orientation.

4. I am not an atheist nor do I "reject scripture". But it is you who are guilty of scripture defilement and biblioatry.

5. The comment on consensus is beyond silly, as consensus is often wrong -- as it was at the time of the Civil War, and during era of segregation where up until the 1960s, most Christians were in favor of segregation.

Stan said...

Naum, you continue to miss the point. Getting rid of someone for holding an opposing view is not "equality", "inclusive", "safe", or "welcoming to all". That was the point of the post. You continue to make it about a new definition of marriage. Not the point.

1. Just because GLBTQ's feel like it is the equivalent doesn't make it so. Denying it is the same without responding to the reasons why it is not the same is simply denial, not an argument. (See Monty Python's Argument Sketch.)

2. The fact that some have, in the history of the Church, made arguments in the name of Christianity apart from any supporting texts and in deviation from the rest of Scripture and Church history does not qualify as "the Church". Any cursory reading of the Bible will show that the slavery of the Old Testament is not the equivalent to the slavery of the 18th and 19th centuries. (For starters, the Old Testament strictly forbids kidnapping someone for the purposes of slavery (Exo 21:16).) Notice that "pious believers" held that the Scriptures sanctioned slavery while more did not (which brought about the Civil War and the end of legalized slavery in America).

You know what? I'm done answering these nonsensical points. You haven't actually offered any answers to the arguments (My first comment in the string) which demonstrate what the Scriptures say about the subject of who a person engages in sexual relations. Instead, you throw in false comparisons, terms that don't have any relation to the discussion (like "sexual orientation" which has no bearing on the morality of choosing to engage in sexual relations with someone of the same gender). And then you accuse me of defiling Scripture by claiming that "God hates fags" (from your link), something that cannot be farther from the truth. Since Scripture, coherent arguments, and the truth don't matter to you in these dialogs, perhaps you ought to move on.

Danny Wright said...

That's amazing. For thousands of years of human history, and 2000 years of Church history, marriage has meant the union between one man and one woman, and now, after all of this time, to hold that view is a defilement of scripture and bigoted.

My take: bigot = bad... Jesus hates you and would never ever dine with such, and the righteous thing to do is to be intolerant of such, persecute and deny such their jobs. But sexual sin, including murdering the offspring of that sin in the womb = wonderful, Jesus loves you very much and would love to come and have supper with you.

While granted, Naum may not be an atheist, there is no way he or his religious ilk are worshiping the same Jesus or God, or that we can be in the same religion. While he chooses to call his religion by the same name as traditional Christians do, I'm afraid that the only similarities between our two religions is in the name. It seems that a new religion has adopted, or probably more appropriately put, co-opted, an old name. As I said earlier, calling myself a bird only serves to confuse those who don't know birds.

There is much evil and demonic influence in Naum's take, ("Did God really say?) Fortunately, and graciously however, God is sovereign and for 2000 years of Satanic attacks on his Church, those who have belonged to Jesus have known his voice and have not been fooled when the thief and robber entered in to steal. For this we can praise Jehovah.

Danny Wright said...

I'm sure Jesus would be proud of these atheists. :) Of course these atheists are being consistent at least. They are claiming there is no absolute moral authority beyond consensus, or perhaps better put, beyond might.

Danny Wright said...

Hmmm, here's another one. I'm sure Jesus is really hip on this organization. It's strange also how predictable it is that once you figure out where someone stands on redefining the word "marriage", you will also generally know where they stand on murdering the weakest among us in the womb.

Makes me wonder, what did these defenseless little ones ever do to deserve being murdered just because their mother didn't want them, and how in this world is that "love"? Again, secularists have an excuse. They claim that morality is a social construct, or the construction of those who have enough power to impose their concept of "good" onto the population they control.

Danny Wright said...

Comment on that last link said:

"Secular Humanists generally strongly support same-sex marriage because we do not consider the Bible as a valid source for making laws."

Evidently, neither should Christians!

Naum said...

@Stan, no, your history is incorrect -- see Mark Noll *America's God* or *The Civil War as a Theological Crisis* -- at the outbreak of the civil war (circa 1861), most Christians in America believed the Bible sanctioned slavery. ESPECIALLY those who took the text more LITERALLY -- the abolitionist and abolitionist sympathizers (which were still a minority, even amongst those who thought slavery was wrong, racism was still prevalent and/or belief that economic system hinged on slavery) appealed to reading scripture as a grand narrative (much in the manner we do as we justify monogamy or today, against slavery, racism, equality of women).

@Dan wrote: While granted, Naum may not be an atheist, there is no way he or his religious ilk are worshiping the same Jesus or God, or that we can be in the same religion. While he chooses to call his religion by the same name as traditional Christians do, I'm afraid that the only similarities between our two religions is in the name. It seems that a new religion has adopted, or probably more appropriately put, co-opted, an old name. As I said earlier, calling myself a bird only serves to confuse those who don't know birds.

You speak on what you know little of. Can you read the NT in Greek? How much of the early church have you read? The patristic fathers? Show me where in the creeds same sex unions are proscribed against? Where did Jesus speak about it?

You sound like a child under the influence of too much sugar.

Stan said...

Original "slavery" in America began primarily as indentured servitude, a means of obtaining passage to the New World without sufficient funds to do so. Thus, most "slaves" were volunteers ... and white. This led to a culture of "free labor" in the South because the work was hard and the rich didn't want to do it. But the work increased while the labor force did not, so this led to the biblically banned practice of kidnapping and forced slavery.

Thomas Jefferson admitted that slavery bothered him and that "abolition of slavery was the greatest object of desire", but he didn't do anything about it. The Methodist church voted to expel members who bought or sold slaves in 1784. The Virginia Baptists denounced slavery in 1789. Kentucky Baptists resolved against slavery in 1791. Presbyterian synods in New York and Philadelphia called for the end of slavery in 1787 and the Presbyterian General Assembly called for the same in 1791. In 1815 the Presbyterians declared slavery "inconsistent with the Gospel". In the early 1800's the American Colonization Society sought to send the black man back to Africa. Some Christians bought slaves just to send them home. The society sent their first boatload back in 1821. (They were sent to Liberia and named their capital Monrovia in honor of James Monroe, the President of the United States.) The American Anti-Slavery Society was formed in 1833. At every place that anti-slavery forces met opposition, it was on the basis of economics, not religion.

At the beginning of the 19th century, more southerners than northerners called for emancipation. Once loud voices entered the field, they became defensive. Their argument was not that it was biblically good, but simply that it was not biblically condemned. Northern clergy argued that soutnerners based their interpretations on extreme liberalism.

The defense of slavery among those calling themselves Christians consisted almost exclusively of an argument from silence. "The Bible doesn't condemn it, so it's okay." This, of course, is not the same thing as saying, "The Bible approves of it." It is, as such, a non-defense. It is the same defense of atheism: "I can't find any evidence for God, so He doesn't exist." The only other defense offered came from Genesis. Noah cursed Ham (Gen 9:25-27). Part of that curse was, "A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers." The Babylonian Talmud claims that the curse turned Ham black. Thus, the black man was cursed to be an eternal servant. The fact that Ham (aka Canaan) settled in Canaan, not Africa, and that the overthrow of Canaan by Israel coming out of Egypt fulfilled the curse should have been a problem to the American Christians trying to justify specifically prohibited slavery in order to maintain an economic system. The fact that Paul urged slaves to become free (1 Cor 7:21) ought to have been another clue.

In other words, American race-based, kidnapping-based slavery 1) violated Scripture, 2) had no biblical backing, and 3) found several good reasons in the Bible to be removed. Further, there was always Christian opposition. Those who defended the practice did so against Scripture. And when folks like John Newton, a captain of a slave ship, became Christians, they revolted against the practice. Or, at the end of the story, there were sound, biblical reasons to deny slavery and sound, biblical Christians who did.

Naum said...

@Stan, you're missing the point.

First, a minor foible -- your understanding of historical slavery is anachronistic and selective -- slavery was a lynchpin of American economy and the focus on indentured servants irrelevant as that was a tiny blip compared to slave trade.

And yes, there were a number of Christian groups and denominations lobbying, preaching, and acting for side of abolition. But until after the Civil War erupted, they only represented a minority of American Christians. This is not my opinion, but the consensus of scholars and historians (again, see Mark Noll or other historians specializing in theology). But worse, and this you miss, it was the folk who most adhered to a literal reading that would be in favor of sanctioning slavery. Those groups you cited were all criticized by other Christians as veering from Biblical truth. It sounds like you want to believe the best, but the historical reality, according to our best scholarship, was not as such. The Civil War was a theological battle, first and foremost -- and the irony was that throughout the rest of the world, most Christians did not agree with the majority of American Christians on this -- because US was the place most imbued with "what the Bible says". And while many Northerners considered slave trade abhorrent, they still harbored much racism, and did not believe slavery was biblically unjust.

Your charge of "Northern clergy argued that soutnerners based their interpretations on extreme liberalism." is nowhere near the mark -- in fact, what hurt the abolitionist cause was that it was considered liberal (either from transcendentalist thinkers that to devout Christians, abandoned scripture OR from those that saw the love ethic of the Bible, instead of plucking out and proof-texting -- to more conservative readers, that was a "liberal" hermeneutic. Once again, see the literature, pamphlets and letters of the Age as Noll (and others) captured in his books.

"Here, then, was the situation with the Bible and slavery on the eve of the war, and here it stood throughout the war. In theological terms, what was in fact a wide-ranging debate looked like it could be reduced to a forced dichotomy—either orthodoxy and slavery, or heresy and antislavery. On the one side of the forced choice, a theologian could maintain traditional views of the Bible and either actively promote slavery alongside influential Southern voices or, with conservatives North and South, take the slightly more moderate position of simply accepting slavery as reflecting a divine ordinance. On the other side of the forced choice, a theologian could indeed attack slavery as a sin. But this path could be chosen only by advancing one of two unappealing solutions: either abandon the traditional authority of the Bible in favor of the kind of romantic humanism promoted by the radical abolitionists, or—with Albert Barnes, Henry Ward Beecher, Jonathan Blanchard, and like-minded biblicists—drastically modify the hermeneutical practices that had become second nature in much of the United States."

I agree with your points that the Bible does not support slavery. But most American Christians in 19C thought otherwise. Same as was true for segregation, interracial marriage, subordination of women, divorce, etc.

Naum said...

A couple of more quotes from Noll's *America's God* and/or *The Civil War as a Theological Crisis*:

"For over thirty years Americans battled each other exegetically on this issue, with the more orthodox and the ones who took most seriously the authority of Scripture being also the ones most likely to conclude that the Bible sanctioned slavery."

"…nuanced biblical attacks on American slavery faced rough going precisely because they were nuanced. This position could not simply be read out of any one biblical text; it could not be lifted directly from the page. Rather, it needed patient reflection on the entirety of the Scriptures; it required expert knowledge of the historical circumstances of ancient Near Eastern and Roman slave systems as well as of the actually existing conditions in the slave states; and it demanded that sophisticated interpretative practice replace a commonsensically literal approach to the sacred text. In short, this was an argument of elites requiring that the populace defer to its intellectual betters. As such, it contradicted democratic and republican intellectual instincts. In the culture of the United States, as that culture had been constructed by three generations of evangelical Bible believers, the nuanced biblical argument was doomed."

Stan said...

As I stated before, "Naum, you continue to miss the point. Getting rid of someone for holding an opposing view is not 'equality', 'inclusive', 'safe', or 'welcoming to all'. That was the point of the post. You continue to make it about a new definition of marriage. Not the point." You never addressed that. Neither is it the problems of 19th century historical views. As I said before, "The fact that some have, in the history of the Church, made arguments in the name of Christianity apart from any supporting texts and in deviation from the rest of Scripture and Church history does not qualify as 'the Church'." No matter what you claim, no Scripture can be offered that endorses slavery. None. The problem of "most Christians" creating a doctrine out of thin air that endorses and commands racial slavery against the texts of Scripture simply suggest that "Many are called, but few are chosen."

So, I'm missing the point? I'm missing the point about the post I wrote? I also apparently seem to be missing the point -- indeed, the proof -- you're trying to offer that the Holy Spirit failed, the Church has always been wrong, and if we could just set aside our silly biblical viewpoints, everyone would be much better off. Got it. Thanks.

Naum said...

You miss the point because you and other commenters here continue to make an argument from church "tradition". And I'm illustrating to you how historically, the majority of Christians who stood on tradition and scripture, got it wrong.

In 19C, MOST of the church believed the Bible sanctioned slavery, and that was the conservative orthodox position against the abolitionist side.

In 20C, MOST of the church believed in segregation (look at polling in the 60s) and bans on interracial marriage.

In 21C, MOST of church believed SSM to be against scripture, though this is rapidly changing, especially amongst younger Christians. The part of "the church" that preaches, lobbies, and acts for LGBT equality is in the same historical camp as the abolitionists, civil rights (which conservatives predominately opposed -- I know someone will chime in that Republicans supported civil rights but that was in an era where there were conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans), etc.

Stan said...

Last try. The argument I made here was "You gotta go if you don't agree with us" is not "equality", "inclusive", "safe", or "welcoming to all". It doesn't matter if we're talking about redefining marriage or indulging in sexual immorality or promoting world peace. The premise that removing those who disagree promotes equality, inclusiveness, safety, and welcome to all is nonsense.

Naum said...

@Stan, I can see that side too.

Honestly, if I were a Mozilla board member, I would not have pressured Eich to resign (plus, I have enormous respect for Eich, creator of Javascript).

I know I've been the contrarian in this article space, well, because I can see the other side too. And consider how the discriminated against would feel just as an African-American would too if Eich gave money to overturning Loving v. Virginia (which kicked off the comment stream here :))

But I'm not on the board there -- and I do know tech workers in that part of the country (on either coast actually) get pretty stirred up about LGBT equality & justice.

OTOH, I really strive to live out the "love your enemies, bless those that curse you" words of Jesus (though, admittedly I stumble in this, often, :()

/thanks for reading and engaging :-)

David said...

I know it's still on the sub-subject, but I'm not sure I could really every agree with Naum, on just about anything at this point. According to Naum, divorce isn't wrong, biblically. According to Naum, we should listen to the youngest among us to define what is right and wrong. According to Naum, the Bible is simply a subjective tool that can mean whatever we choose it to mean based on our current culture; tradition be hanged.