Day: December 8, 2010

Posted on

Oh, the Difference a Preposition Makes

I’ve been captured, recently, by the paraphrase of Romans 8:31-39, as found in the Scottish Psalter, “Let Christian faith and hope dispel,” particularly the last line of the first verse, which sets the tone for the entire song with its adherence to clear exegesis of its scriptural antecedent:

Let Christian faith and hope dispel
The fears from which we hide,
For who would dare oppose us now
That God is at our side?

Many people, reading their own agendas into Romans 8:31, “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?” argue that God is ON their side in some area of conflict. But the whole of Romans 8:31-39 is subject to its context especially but not only the eighth chapter of Romans, which makes it pretty clear that God is not so much ON the side of those who follow Him but AT their side to comfort, cheer, aid, encourage, etc., as they are on His side.

Big difference.

And this is especially important as those who are labeled–by the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind and even by themselves at times–the “religious right” assert their own “traditional values”. If those values are not clearly godly values, claiming that God is on their side passes hubris on into slander. I’d just caution such folks to be careful, to examine those “traditional values” (such a stupid term; whose traditions, specifically what values?) and only claim to be trying to seek godly values as those things they assert have solid scriptural basis.

Just an observation from an amateur armchair (yeh, the redundancy is necessary :-)) historian/theologian/social-political observer.

BTW, this is the basis of just one of many reasons that Mike Huckabee gives me the heebie-jeebies. He cloaks his Phariseeism on political speech, but he just makes my skin crawl.

Posted on

Nanny State 101

So, a woman throws a newspaper in a trash can marked, “Litter Only” and is slapped with a $100 fine by a nanny-state “Sanitation Cop” (WTF?!? “Sanitation Cop”?!?). Because it hadn’t been found on the ground and thus was “litter”? Cwazy stuff, folks.

I suppose the woman could have avoided the fine by first throwing the paper on the ground, but then the “Sanitation Cop” would probably have cited her for littering, even if she had then picked the paper up and thrown it in the litter receptacle. Or cited her for both actions, I suppose. Anything goes with nanny-state, anarcho-tyrannical bureaucraps.

But worse, the so-called “Sanitation Cop” is reported to have said the citation was for throwing “garbage” in the litter can. The “Sanitation Cop” ought to have a $1,000 fine thrown at her for verbal littering. Blurring useful distinctions of meaning by using a word that’s generally for application to wet refuse–garbage–for something that’s obviously dry refuse–trash–is inexcusable in a public employee and should be punishable by more than simple fines, though.

Oh, then there’s my other gripe with the report. The whiny, useless, stupid argument-from-sympathy invoked by the NY Post writers pushing the “80-year-old woman on Social Security” button. Right is right and wrong is wrong and ad hominem arguments (they cut both ways–appeals for sympathy are ad hominem arguments just as much as attempt to illegitimately impeach a person’s argument by referring to personal circumstances, etc., are) make no difference in whether an act is right or wrong. The “80-year-old woman on Social Security” could as easily have been Donald Trump for all I care. Citing someone with a $100 fine for throwing a newspaper in a litter receptacle is just wrong no matter who they are or what their circumstances.