Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

From Frequently Asked Questions About the Bible and Homosexuality:

The ancients, as MIT's David Halperin notes: "conceived of 'sexuality' in non-sexual terms: What was fundamental to their experience of sex was not anything we would regard as essentially sexual. Rather, [sex] was something essentially social -- namely the modality of power relations that informed and structured the sexual act." In the ancient world, sex was "not intrinsically relational or collaborative in character; it is, further, a deeply polarizing experience: It serves to divide, to classify, and to distribute its participants into distinct and radically dissimilar categories. Sex possesses this valence, apparently because it is conceived to center essentially on, and to define itself around, an asymmetrical gesture, that of the penetration of the body of one person by the body, and, specifically, by the phallus -- of another ... The proper targets of [a citizen's] sexual desire include, specifically, women, boys, foreigners, and slaves -- all of them persons who do not enjoy the same legal and political rights and privileges that he does." Today's society values and practices sexuality in entirely different terms: love, relationship, mutual respect.

(Editorial notes in square brackets above appear on the web page from which this is copied.)

(Hmm ... the implication that modern practice matches modern values sounds simplistic and idealistic ...)

Thanks to ysabel for pointing out this series of essays by bradhicks: "Christians in the Hand of an Angry God" -- It's long, but more than worth it.

Part 1 compares modern Christian fundamentalism and Biblical literalism, shows where they diverge, and asserts that this is a deliberate preaching of a false Gospel. Part 2 discusses the reasons for the alignment of the Religious Right and the Republican party (what was in it for the churches) and how it was accomplished. Part 3 continues with how they leveraged social movements and cultural angst to make their version look "normal", including the odd turn to a focus on selected bits of Leviticus. Part 4 covers abortion and shows that the abortion debate is really about sex, not about souls (relevant quote, "Roe v Wade grants the fetus more rights and more recognition as a person than the Bible does"). And Part 5 summarizes and then explains why a non-Christian cares so much and why everyone else should care about false preaching by Christian churches. Note that although the author is not a Christian, most of the arguments are presented from within a Christian context, which makes sense for this sort of discussion.

I think this is important reading. Even if you disagree, it raises some important points and fills in some interesting bits of history. And if you're already one of the people who sees a fundamental disconnect between the Republican agenda and Christian teachings but are mystified as to why so many Christians vote Republican anyhow, this series explains a lot.

Err... I've got most of a saxophones / double-bass / electric-guitar / drums / keys arrangement of "Douce Dame Jolie" goin' round and round in my head. Think ... three fourths of the way from Tommy Dorsey to the Cherry Poppin' Daddies, with a little bit of the Brian Setzer Orchestra mixed in and a wee sprinkle of Wolfstone on top. A bit uptempo from how you'd normally play it. It starts with a stripped-down version of the melody, leaving out a bunch of notes and having a lot of rests to make it "pop" explosively with not-even-considering-being-subtle syncopation, then a "straight" version melodically but with a big-band feel to the rhythm section, and finally looping into a madhouse all-the-frills improvisation across various instruments full of tiny notes.

And I don't play sax worth a damn. :-(

I wonder whether I can score it before crucial bits flee my brain. I wonder whether I can keep track of enough at once to score it at all.

My head gets kind of noisy when I'm in the shower.