[For this post I want to highlight part of a friend's response to the last post, and then part of my reponse. I thought his response was particularly helpful and thoughtful, and he also knows Greek better than I do. This also forced me to clarify my position a little bit.]
"...At the moment I am most interested in your "Homosexuality in the Bible" blogs. A close friend of mine has recently developed a relationship with a girl. The problem is that he is not sexually attracted to women, but to men. As a Christian he feels that he must overcome this, and hopes that his explaining of his situation to his girlfriend tonight will not end their relationship. I have had many conversations with him about this, and am by no means naive to the fact that his attraction to his same sex is not a choice and not the direct result of abuse, etc...
I do have trouble, however, understanding your interpretation of Romans 1, because I don't see the ambiguity you speak of as it relates to the referent of the 3rd plural pronoun in 1.18-32. Verses 1.17-18 seem to form a direct comparison between the righteous (dikaios) and the unrighteous (adikian anthropon...). The passage, as I take it, is not referring of some unidentified group of people, or homosexuals for that matter, but "unrighteous men" ("men" in the verse part of a circumstantial genitive absolute; not grammatically related, but obviously conceptually related to those perpetrating the "injustice"). Though Paul does seem to have specific instances in mind as he references idolatrous acts, I don't think that the subject, what this passage is really about, is either "all homosexuals" or "some specific group of homosexuals" (as you divide the possibilities), but not homosexuals at all. As I take it, he is elaborating on the main point of the passage, "the righteous man shall live by faith," and contrasting it with incidental examples of those people who "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." That those people--whether he had in mind the Corinthians or the Romans, the general cultural milieu, the historical Jews (notice the Messianic context with the aorist tense), or mankind as a whole-- were committing homosexual acts seems to be for Paul a clear cut, though incidental, example of sin--but plainly Paul is not referring to homosexuals as such or the Corinthians specifically, but unrighteous men categorically.
As it does pertain to the degradation of the "natural function" ("chresin," a using), it seems that it would be prudent for you to more consistently make a distinction between "homosexual activity" and "homosexuals." I think Paul, and the culture of the time (and as the phrase suggests), understood this word to be an action rather than a simple attraction to the opposite sex, as we tend to use 'homosexual'. The passions (pathos) could also be 'an incident' rather than an ongoing attraction. In that light...
It seems a bit unfair to articulate the "conservative" or "Evangelical" position as universally taking this passage to be talking about "all homosexuals." This may be the case for people like Dobson or Campollo (I don't know because I don't listen to them), but I would be surprised if even they did not recognize what this passage is about (i.e. "unrighteous men"--not simply homosexuals, whether in the particular case of the Corinthians or universally). Moreover, I personally have not heard many "evangelicals" say that it is a sin to have desire for the same sex, though they claim it is a sin to act on those desires. (i.e. it is not wrong to be tempted, but it is wrong to gratify the temptation).
To your three divisions of the passage, I think you must add two: the gospel message (vv. 3-5) and "the punchline" (2.1). That is, the verses don't make sense if we skip over the part that is usually ignored as an extra verbose introduction: the declaration of Christ as the resurrected Lord ( 1.4), the imparted grace, and the subsequent transformation of lives into the "obedience of faith" (v.5). Having been shown what happens without this (1.18-32), there's the punchline: "Therefore you are without excuse, every man of you who passes judgement, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things." I think Paul uses the third plural pronoun in 1.18-32 because he wanted the readers to think, "yeah, those scumbags," before he leveled the truth on them: its not "them"... its you!"
Response:
...I am in complete agreement with you about the ultimate referent of the "them" being "truth-suppressors". But that doesn't yet tell us enough about the group described in the rest of the passage, because we are all guilty of supressing the truth to some extent, but of course we do not all have same-sex tendencies. Therefore the referent must be narrower than all truth-suppressors. What I was getting at is that Paul was building his case against some unnamed group that he would in the next paragraph accuse of same-sex activity. But are all people that are homosexuals attracted to the same sex as a result of "truth suppression", or is there only a certain group that suppressed the truth in a certain way and has a punishment that takes the form of some kind of same-sex activity (like bi-sexual worship)? Taking your personal example and asking the same question, are your friend's struggles the result of some past idolatry of his, or was Paul simply not trying to talk about all people for all time who have same-sex desires? You (I think) and I would both answer by saying that he was not. The verses about truth-suppression simply do not help us understand your friend's sexuality.
And I think that Dobson, on the other hand, (I use him as an example because he likes to send me mailings about how gay marriage is destroying our country) would say that the description of truth-suppression is indeed relevant for helping us understand your friend. I think you have to be terribly xenophobic to think this way. For example, if I put a homosexual in front of Dobson, he would say that the Bible says that the person in front of him is being punished for truth-suppression and idolatry gone wild. So given that vv. 26-27 describe some sort of same-sex activity, the question is whether this describes all same-sex activity or not. That is what I meant by the "all homosexual" or "some homosexual" division.
And I fully agree with your point that the word "homosexuality" is not helpful, as the Greeks most likely did not have a conception of some kind of homosexual nature. Rather, it is an 18th or 19th century combination of the Greek "homo" and the Latin "sexual". But I don't buy the distinction between the disposition and the act (but I confess I don’t know what to make of your analysis of the Greek words). BOTH the burning AND the actions are described here as the punishment for truth suppression. So I don't think it’s faithful to the text for Evangelicals to separate the two as they commonly do, the desire being unfortunate but not a sin, while the action itself is the actual sin. They are both elements of the same punishment for the same crime of truth-suppression and rampant idolatry. So if the Evangelical buys into the idea that all same-sex desire is described in verses 26-27 (and I can't buy into that interpretation), then he must also say that the ONLY reason a person has same-sex desire is the result of excessive idolatry (and that is the reason my conscience simply won't let me buy into that interpretation). And furthermore, he must also say that all homosexuals are described by vv.28-32. This latter observation is perhaps the most damning of the conservative interpretation of this passage. Its just not true that all gay people are "God-haters". So I want to back away from this division between the act and the desire, and ask a broader question: just who was Paul talking about here anyway?
2.20.2007
2.16.2007
Homosexuality in the Bible, Part II
[I apologize in advance for the length of this post. But I'm claiming that Romans 1 isn't about homosexuality as such, and I assume that that claim will make most people angry at me, so I felt like I needed to explain myself at some length.]
In analyzing the Biblical texts that are commonly used in discussions of homosexuality, it is prudent to begin in Romans 1, since that is considered to be the clearest condemnation of homosexuality. In the next two blogs, I will attempt to demonstrate that while Romans 1:18-32 is certainly condemning something, it is not at all a condemnation of homosexuality. Rather, only a certain kind of homosexuality is condemned here. We can focus our question in this way: what group of people is being referred to in this passage? By my count, there are 24 uses of the relevant pronoun in verses 18-32: in the subject case (they) it is used 12 times, in the object case (them) it is used 6 times, and as a possessive pronoun (their) it is used 6 times. Since these are all pronouns, of course we must wonder what noun they are being used as a substitute for, but the answer is difficult to nail down. In the first verse, Paul uses the relative pronoun “who” to describe the group he is referring to, but the description is only “those who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth”, which doesn’t resolve the ambiguity. That is, we still don't know what noun Paul had in mind. This ambiguity gives rise to two interpretations of the passage, one arguing that the referent of “they, them, and their” is “all homosexuals”, the other arguing that the referent is a much smaller group: not all homosexuals, but a certain group of homosexuals. Since Paul never specifies his referent, we will have to decide which interpretation is more appropriate by closely examining the text.
First I will briefly explain the second interpretation. In Corinth, worship of the hermaphrodite god Aphrodite was culturally important. Worship services to him/her/it consisted of the worshippers “flipping” genders in order to experience “the other side”, or in some sense to be closer to the bi-sexual nature of Aphrodite. The claim is that Paul is speaking of this group in this passage, which is obviously quite different from the interpretation which says that the “they, them and their” are “all homosexuals.” So which interpretation is more likely?
The passage itself can be divided into three parts: the crime (vv.18-23), the punishment for the crime (vv.24-27), and the result of the punishment (vv.28-32). This division should be uncontroversial, since Paul divides the three sections logically by use of “therefore” or “since”. The crime that “they” committed was clearly idolatry. And this is not metaphorical idolatry either, like when idolatry is described as thinking that sports are more important than God. No, Paul says quite clearly that they were bowing down before actual representations of human beings and reptiles and birds and fish, to the exclusion of the worship of the one true God. In vv.24-27 we have a description of the punishment: both homosexual desires and homosexual acts. Why does Paul talk about homosexuality here? The answer is clear – because it is a punishment for the crime of idolatry. The transition is in the word “therefore” in v.24, or “for this reason” in v.26. As a result of the idol worship, God gave them over to these passions. Now we are ready for the third section: what was "their" destiny? Paul actually gives 22 different adjectives to describe this lowly group of folks, including “faithless”, “murders”, “haters of God”, “disobedient to parents”, etc. So some group is clearly condemned by Paul here, but we still do not know who.
Let’s take the conservative interpretation and assume that the “they” is “all homosexuals”. Is this a good description of all homosexuals? Well, first of all, if you hold to this interpretation you must believe that there is one and only one cause of homosexuality, and that is excessive idol worship. Remember, we aren’t talking about the metaphorical stuff here, but literal idolatry. This contradicts what most conservatives say. I commonly hear from people like Dobson or from workers at Christian group homes who are trying to reform homosexuals that homosexuality is a result of suffering child abuse at an early age, overexposure to girl’s activities and/or clothes at a sensitive age, not having a strong father presence, or even overexposure to pornography. But let’s think about this: if all homosexuality really is a punishment (God gave them up) for excessive idol worship, then people like Dobson flatly contradict their own interpretation of Romans 1. Whatever it is that is described in vv.26-27 is a clearly a punishment for too much idol worship. To diagnose someone as being homosexual because they were messed up by sexual abuse as a child and then to say that Romans 1 is about them is quite perverted.
Furthermore, there is the issue of those 22 nasty adjectives in vv.28-32. To claim that all or most of those 22 character qualities are true of all homosexuals is just plain wrong. If you honestly think that the 12-year-old kid who grew up singing worship songs to God in youth group and now cuts his wrists because he doesn’t want to be gay is accurately described by Romans 1, then I have an assignment for you. Find three gay people, ask them if they would have coffee with you, then over coffee let them describe their first realizations of being gay, their thought processes, and for some, their struggle to live as a Christian in a world that hates gays. I’m not at all joking – if you ask around, you will be able to find three. And although it’s pretty weird, I’ll bet that if you are honest with them about your intentions, they will respect the fact that you are trying to understand them. After all, most of them have lived life as hated outsiders, so I’m sure they’ll welcome the company. And this gives you the advantage of being like Jesus. He spent his time with societies’ outcasts and other “yucky” people. Anyway, after you finish hanging out with them, first pray, then write an essay about your experience, read it out loud to yourself or close friends, and then stand in front of the mirror and have a long moment of silence. Trust me, after all that you will not still think that Romans 1 is describing all homosexuals.
Tony Campolo frequently tells a heart-wrenching story from his childhood of a gay kid named Roger. Roger was easily identified as gay because of some physical characteristics, and so he was relentlessly teased for his obvious “transgression” of “nature’s law.” One day, 5 boys ganged up on Roger and shoved him down in the shower room, and took turns holding him down and urinating on him. Roger went home that night, waited until his parents went to bed, and then hanged himself in his basement. Try reading through that list of adjectives again in vv.28-32, and then ask yourself who the unrighteous, evil, covetous, malicious, envious, murderous, strife-filled, deceitful, gossiping, slandering, God-hating, insolent, haughty, boastful, evil-inventing, parent-disobeying, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless ones are in that story. Do you think it was Roger, or the boys who urinated on him?
On the other hand, if you assume that the “they” referent is the orgy-having, idolatry-loving Corinthians, this passage goes from making no sense to making perfect sense. Those people without a doubt deserved a condemnation, and although I don’t know much about these perverted worship services, I am sure that Paul accurately describes their crime, the punishment for their crime, and the result of the punishment. The condemnation delievered by this passage, then, is no more a condemnation of all homosexuality than condemning heterosexual orgies is the same thing as condemning all heterosexuality.
One worry is still remaining. Perhaps you will ask me, “Alright, I give in to logic and reason, and now I understand that Paul was primarily addressing those worshippers of Aphrodite. But still, can’t we read vv.26-27 as applying to all homosexuals? I mean, even though Paul’s rant wasn’t primarily about all homosexuals, he still calls all homosexual acts and passions “contrary to nature”? Perhaps it was incidental, but don’t we still get a 'by-the-way' condemnation of homosexuality in this text?” And that’s a good enough question to be the subject of the next blog.
In analyzing the Biblical texts that are commonly used in discussions of homosexuality, it is prudent to begin in Romans 1, since that is considered to be the clearest condemnation of homosexuality. In the next two blogs, I will attempt to demonstrate that while Romans 1:18-32 is certainly condemning something, it is not at all a condemnation of homosexuality. Rather, only a certain kind of homosexuality is condemned here. We can focus our question in this way: what group of people is being referred to in this passage? By my count, there are 24 uses of the relevant pronoun in verses 18-32: in the subject case (they) it is used 12 times, in the object case (them) it is used 6 times, and as a possessive pronoun (their) it is used 6 times. Since these are all pronouns, of course we must wonder what noun they are being used as a substitute for, but the answer is difficult to nail down. In the first verse, Paul uses the relative pronoun “who” to describe the group he is referring to, but the description is only “those who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth”, which doesn’t resolve the ambiguity. That is, we still don't know what noun Paul had in mind. This ambiguity gives rise to two interpretations of the passage, one arguing that the referent of “they, them, and their” is “all homosexuals”, the other arguing that the referent is a much smaller group: not all homosexuals, but a certain group of homosexuals. Since Paul never specifies his referent, we will have to decide which interpretation is more appropriate by closely examining the text.
First I will briefly explain the second interpretation. In Corinth, worship of the hermaphrodite god Aphrodite was culturally important. Worship services to him/her/it consisted of the worshippers “flipping” genders in order to experience “the other side”, or in some sense to be closer to the bi-sexual nature of Aphrodite. The claim is that Paul is speaking of this group in this passage, which is obviously quite different from the interpretation which says that the “they, them and their” are “all homosexuals.” So which interpretation is more likely?
The passage itself can be divided into three parts: the crime (vv.18-23), the punishment for the crime (vv.24-27), and the result of the punishment (vv.28-32). This division should be uncontroversial, since Paul divides the three sections logically by use of “therefore” or “since”. The crime that “they” committed was clearly idolatry. And this is not metaphorical idolatry either, like when idolatry is described as thinking that sports are more important than God. No, Paul says quite clearly that they were bowing down before actual representations of human beings and reptiles and birds and fish, to the exclusion of the worship of the one true God. In vv.24-27 we have a description of the punishment: both homosexual desires and homosexual acts. Why does Paul talk about homosexuality here? The answer is clear – because it is a punishment for the crime of idolatry. The transition is in the word “therefore” in v.24, or “for this reason” in v.26. As a result of the idol worship, God gave them over to these passions. Now we are ready for the third section: what was "their" destiny? Paul actually gives 22 different adjectives to describe this lowly group of folks, including “faithless”, “murders”, “haters of God”, “disobedient to parents”, etc. So some group is clearly condemned by Paul here, but we still do not know who.
Let’s take the conservative interpretation and assume that the “they” is “all homosexuals”. Is this a good description of all homosexuals? Well, first of all, if you hold to this interpretation you must believe that there is one and only one cause of homosexuality, and that is excessive idol worship. Remember, we aren’t talking about the metaphorical stuff here, but literal idolatry. This contradicts what most conservatives say. I commonly hear from people like Dobson or from workers at Christian group homes who are trying to reform homosexuals that homosexuality is a result of suffering child abuse at an early age, overexposure to girl’s activities and/or clothes at a sensitive age, not having a strong father presence, or even overexposure to pornography. But let’s think about this: if all homosexuality really is a punishment (God gave them up) for excessive idol worship, then people like Dobson flatly contradict their own interpretation of Romans 1. Whatever it is that is described in vv.26-27 is a clearly a punishment for too much idol worship. To diagnose someone as being homosexual because they were messed up by sexual abuse as a child and then to say that Romans 1 is about them is quite perverted.
Furthermore, there is the issue of those 22 nasty adjectives in vv.28-32. To claim that all or most of those 22 character qualities are true of all homosexuals is just plain wrong. If you honestly think that the 12-year-old kid who grew up singing worship songs to God in youth group and now cuts his wrists because he doesn’t want to be gay is accurately described by Romans 1, then I have an assignment for you. Find three gay people, ask them if they would have coffee with you, then over coffee let them describe their first realizations of being gay, their thought processes, and for some, their struggle to live as a Christian in a world that hates gays. I’m not at all joking – if you ask around, you will be able to find three. And although it’s pretty weird, I’ll bet that if you are honest with them about your intentions, they will respect the fact that you are trying to understand them. After all, most of them have lived life as hated outsiders, so I’m sure they’ll welcome the company. And this gives you the advantage of being like Jesus. He spent his time with societies’ outcasts and other “yucky” people. Anyway, after you finish hanging out with them, first pray, then write an essay about your experience, read it out loud to yourself or close friends, and then stand in front of the mirror and have a long moment of silence. Trust me, after all that you will not still think that Romans 1 is describing all homosexuals.
Tony Campolo frequently tells a heart-wrenching story from his childhood of a gay kid named Roger. Roger was easily identified as gay because of some physical characteristics, and so he was relentlessly teased for his obvious “transgression” of “nature’s law.” One day, 5 boys ganged up on Roger and shoved him down in the shower room, and took turns holding him down and urinating on him. Roger went home that night, waited until his parents went to bed, and then hanged himself in his basement. Try reading through that list of adjectives again in vv.28-32, and then ask yourself who the unrighteous, evil, covetous, malicious, envious, murderous, strife-filled, deceitful, gossiping, slandering, God-hating, insolent, haughty, boastful, evil-inventing, parent-disobeying, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless ones are in that story. Do you think it was Roger, or the boys who urinated on him?
On the other hand, if you assume that the “they” referent is the orgy-having, idolatry-loving Corinthians, this passage goes from making no sense to making perfect sense. Those people without a doubt deserved a condemnation, and although I don’t know much about these perverted worship services, I am sure that Paul accurately describes their crime, the punishment for their crime, and the result of the punishment. The condemnation delievered by this passage, then, is no more a condemnation of all homosexuality than condemning heterosexual orgies is the same thing as condemning all heterosexuality.
One worry is still remaining. Perhaps you will ask me, “Alright, I give in to logic and reason, and now I understand that Paul was primarily addressing those worshippers of Aphrodite. But still, can’t we read vv.26-27 as applying to all homosexuals? I mean, even though Paul’s rant wasn’t primarily about all homosexuals, he still calls all homosexual acts and passions “contrary to nature”? Perhaps it was incidental, but don’t we still get a 'by-the-way' condemnation of homosexuality in this text?” And that’s a good enough question to be the subject of the next blog.
2.13.2007
Homosexuality in the Bible, Part I
Underlying all Evangelical political positions on gay marriage is the assumption that the Bible gives an unequivocal moral condemnation of all forms of homosexuality. My task of the next few weeks is to examine systematically all of the passages in the Bible that are commonly said to refer to homosexuality to find out exactly what they say and don’t say. Since evangelical positions are always rooted in Scripture, this is certainly a worthwhile venture. The passages in question are Genesis 2, Genesis 19, two verses from the Old Testament law, two verses from the Epistles, and of course Romans 1.
Many Christians feel that a sufficient condemnation of homosexuality already exists in Genesis 2, where God creates only two genders (“she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” 2:23), and then ordains marriage by saying that “they shall become one flesh” (2:24). The idea that this passage delivers a knock-out blow to homosexuality and gay marriage is deep-rooted. In the eighties (which aside from my birth was a rather forgettable decade), conservative Christians were fond of the witty saying, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Likewise, only two days before the referendum on the definition of marriage in 2004, my pastor suddenly deviated from his current series of sermons to talk about the “one man, one woman” marriage principle from Genesis 2. Although it was never said, the implicit message was sufficiently clear: “Genesis 2 condems homosexulaity and same-gendered marriage, and so you should too!”
The thinking here is that since God created only two genders and ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman, and since any deviation from God’s plan is sin, homosexuality is sin. But is it true that any deviation from God’s plan is sin? It certainly is a widely held belief, even among great Christians. For example, the disciples encountered a blind man in John 9 and asked Jesus who messed up to make this man blind: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus responded to their question by rejecting their implication altogether (as he often did) that blindness was a punishment for something.
Blindness is certainly a deviation from God’s original purpose of seeing (what else are the eyes there for?), and homosexuality is also a deviation from God’s original purpose for gender (as a brief anatomical investigation will make clear). But no one thinks anymore (as the disciples did) that blindness is the result of a moral failure. What is true is that blindness is not God’s ideal for the eyes. Similarly, the only thing implied by Genesis 2 is that homosexuality is not God’s ideal for sexuality, but as the example of blindness makes clear, this does not yet make it sin. And so we must answer the Christians that joke about Adam and Steve by saying that just because God did not originally create “Adam and Steve”, this is not yet a moral condemnation of homosexuality. Rather, we will have to wait for other passages to deliver such a condemnation. Do they?
Many Christians feel that a sufficient condemnation of homosexuality already exists in Genesis 2, where God creates only two genders (“she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” 2:23), and then ordains marriage by saying that “they shall become one flesh” (2:24). The idea that this passage delivers a knock-out blow to homosexuality and gay marriage is deep-rooted. In the eighties (which aside from my birth was a rather forgettable decade), conservative Christians were fond of the witty saying, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Likewise, only two days before the referendum on the definition of marriage in 2004, my pastor suddenly deviated from his current series of sermons to talk about the “one man, one woman” marriage principle from Genesis 2. Although it was never said, the implicit message was sufficiently clear: “Genesis 2 condems homosexulaity and same-gendered marriage, and so you should too!”
The thinking here is that since God created only two genders and ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman, and since any deviation from God’s plan is sin, homosexuality is sin. But is it true that any deviation from God’s plan is sin? It certainly is a widely held belief, even among great Christians. For example, the disciples encountered a blind man in John 9 and asked Jesus who messed up to make this man blind: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus responded to their question by rejecting their implication altogether (as he often did) that blindness was a punishment for something.
Blindness is certainly a deviation from God’s original purpose of seeing (what else are the eyes there for?), and homosexuality is also a deviation from God’s original purpose for gender (as a brief anatomical investigation will make clear). But no one thinks anymore (as the disciples did) that blindness is the result of a moral failure. What is true is that blindness is not God’s ideal for the eyes. Similarly, the only thing implied by Genesis 2 is that homosexuality is not God’s ideal for sexuality, but as the example of blindness makes clear, this does not yet make it sin. And so we must answer the Christians that joke about Adam and Steve by saying that just because God did not originally create “Adam and Steve”, this is not yet a moral condemnation of homosexuality. Rather, we will have to wait for other passages to deliver such a condemnation. Do they?
2.04.2007
Moral Tragedy Alert
America has given billions of dollars to many third-world countries over the last century, only to see our investments come to naught. The general pattern is that America would give a large gift with the idea that the money would be used on education or infrastructure. Tragically, corrupt government officials from the third –world would often take the money but use it on projects that benefited only themselves, while leaving their citizens in worse shape than before. This problem is caused not because America is ungenerous, but rather we didn’t want to give money away that would be entirely wasted. Fortunately, there is a good solution to this problem.
Early in the first term, the Bush Administration decided to go forward with a brilliant piece of legislation. This plan was called the Millennium Challenge Act, and would have distributed $15 billion or so over three years to 16 third-world countries. These countries, from Africa and elsewhere, made the list by showing recent governmental efficiency in alleviating poverty and investing in infrastructure, as well as democratic reforms. As a result, we would be able to continue being generous, but our giving would be targeted, ensuring that the funds would benefit those who need them most. This plan was widely praised for its combination of compassion and shrewdness.
Unfortunately, this plan went unfunded because we simply ran out of money. It is not too hard to see why, as Bush recently requested $100 billion for military operations in Iraq in 2007, and $145 billion for 2008, and most experts believe those figures to be much less than what we will actually need. Let’s assume that the war ends in 2008 (which it won’t), and that $245 billion will actually cover those two years (which it won’t). Now consider that the war has gone on for almost 200 weeks, at a cost of $2 billion per week. Thus the war, under those conservative assumptions, will cost $645 billion over five years.
But some things are worth it, right? Well, not this war. The rallying cry was 9/11, where 3,000 Americans were killed, but in subsequent combat operations, 3,000 American soldiers have died, and an estimated 15 Iraqi citizens die for every one American soldier. And of course, Americans are much less safe than before 9/11 because now we are by far the least popular country in the world, and very vulnerable to future attacks. Maybe Iraq will think twice about it the next time that they let some Saudis fly a plane into our buildings (that’s sarcasm).
The horrifying truth is that a non-understandable war cost $645 billion (not to mention the 48,000 people), and the Millennium Challenge Act, which would have lifted millions if not billions out of poverty, was unfunded because it would have cost $15 billion. When considered from the perspective of the number of people involved, it is not at all an overstatement to call this President’s budget one of the worst moral tragedies in all of human history. All of us Bible-thumpers, who realize the correct definition of sodomy (see previous two posts), should be terrified.
Early in the first term, the Bush Administration decided to go forward with a brilliant piece of legislation. This plan was called the Millennium Challenge Act, and would have distributed $15 billion or so over three years to 16 third-world countries. These countries, from Africa and elsewhere, made the list by showing recent governmental efficiency in alleviating poverty and investing in infrastructure, as well as democratic reforms. As a result, we would be able to continue being generous, but our giving would be targeted, ensuring that the funds would benefit those who need them most. This plan was widely praised for its combination of compassion and shrewdness.
Unfortunately, this plan went unfunded because we simply ran out of money. It is not too hard to see why, as Bush recently requested $100 billion for military operations in Iraq in 2007, and $145 billion for 2008, and most experts believe those figures to be much less than what we will actually need. Let’s assume that the war ends in 2008 (which it won’t), and that $245 billion will actually cover those two years (which it won’t). Now consider that the war has gone on for almost 200 weeks, at a cost of $2 billion per week. Thus the war, under those conservative assumptions, will cost $645 billion over five years.
But some things are worth it, right? Well, not this war. The rallying cry was 9/11, where 3,000 Americans were killed, but in subsequent combat operations, 3,000 American soldiers have died, and an estimated 15 Iraqi citizens die for every one American soldier. And of course, Americans are much less safe than before 9/11 because now we are by far the least popular country in the world, and very vulnerable to future attacks. Maybe Iraq will think twice about it the next time that they let some Saudis fly a plane into our buildings (that’s sarcasm).
The horrifying truth is that a non-understandable war cost $645 billion (not to mention the 48,000 people), and the Millennium Challenge Act, which would have lifted millions if not billions out of poverty, was unfunded because it would have cost $15 billion. When considered from the perspective of the number of people involved, it is not at all an overstatement to call this President’s budget one of the worst moral tragedies in all of human history. All of us Bible-thumpers, who realize the correct definition of sodomy (see previous two posts), should be terrified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)