Leviticollision

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"(Lev. 18:22)

The above verse speaks for itself. I need not clarify nor introduce it, for it is apparent our topic of discussion is homosexuality. Before we delve into this issue allow me to provide the reader with autobiographical information that should serve as a backdrop for my argument.

The Houn is genderless, and as such, has no personal experience in regards to this subject. I have never felt the sexual desire, nor passion, nor love. And though my enemies would claim this disqualifies any opinion I may have, the reader may guess I disagree. In fact, I know that asexuality affords me a unique vantage point no sexual being possess. I am impartial. In every subject I am right; however, my enemies ought to be more convinced by my rightness since I take neither side. Let us be done with this business and address the issue itself.

It is pertinent to present this issue in the form of an argument containing points, counter points, etc; particularly because I see myself as a mediator between two sides that I will not hesitate to summarize using impartial labels:

Group 1: Homosexuality is a perversion of God's original intention and should not be condoned in our society.

Group 2: Homosexuality is an inherited trait part of our biology and should recognized and respected in society.

Now, there are many subsets of these sides that attempt to blur the lines with rationality and diplomacy, but they are of no matter. This is the reality of public rhetoric as it stands today. A conversation between these two groups usually functions as follows:

Group 2: We would like you to recognize our rights.

Group 1: No.

Group 2: No seriously, we really would like to be able to marry each other.

Group 1: No, not allowed. God says so.

Group 2: [Expletives]

Group 1: [Something about fire and brimstone]

Group 2: [Organizes a political rally that functions as a veritable anger-festival]

Group 1: [Recites "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"; connects homosexual acts to natural disasters]

The conversation devolves from here. This fight has raged for all time, or at least as long as I can remember, which is as good as forever. And, let us be clear: I did not start this fight. In usual fashion, we must deconstruct both sides to excavate the real truth.

There is an archaic air about Group 1. I am a champion of things long dead. Resurrection of old testament law appeals to my iron sensibilities. Moreover, forcing my beliefs upon others using civil/military authority is a pastime of mine. However, in this case that action is illogical for one simple reason: We must not discourage the wrong actions of others when that wrong action dictates their own erase. Allowing homosexuals to marry would amount to less children with the genetic predisposition for homosexuality. Over time, there would be none left. [Say what you will of adoption and surrogate mothers; these practices will merely slow the process]. If Group 1 really wanted to remove homosexuality from society as a sin, they would let it extinguish itself.

The prime dispute I hold with Group 2 is that they have created their own problem. If at this very moment I declared people whose favorite color is orange to be a minority and lobbied for them, I could call it a civil rights movement. Moreover, I could created my own enemy simply by annoying them. I could shout on street corners and be so loud as to force the middle ground to take a stand. And of course, they would stand against me because I would be incredibly irritating. This is Group 2's quagmire.   If they really wanted rights they could have them in an instance, simply be attaining them stealthily. Instead, they demand the surrender of the opposition as a condition of their victory.

I have hinted at the solution underlying this problem. Both sides can claim victory. Homosexuals can marry. Group 1 can work toward their world without sin. However, in the end, this argument isn't about solving a problem. It is about argument for the sake of argument. It is about yelling atop your lungs with fury. It is about acts of violence and annoying pop singers who wear audacious costumes. It is theatre. And, in truth, neither side can bare for it to end. Debate will only end when one side sounds the death knell with a faint sign and a few words: "This bores me..."

Far be it from be to spoil the fun.
Calhoun out.

Godliness is Human Attrition

Greetings dear friends, it has been too long. Two weeks to be exact. I would provide you with an explanation of my absence, but I do not have one. I was here, and quite present. However, I felt my last post triumphant enough to sustain my audience for twice the normal period. When striking a beautiful note, let it ring out. 

This week I thought it particularly important to delve into history. For our purposes, we need wind backward nearly two centuries to the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. We need venture back to the writings of one Andrew Ure (1778-1857), another old friend of mine. Through his writings we can extrapolate a modern doctrine that vindicates his period and our own.

Proclamation: The attrition of humanity brings humans closer to God.

Ure wrote in his "Philosophy of the Manufacturers"(1835) that "in the factory, every member of the loom is so adjusted, that the driving force leaves the attendant nearly nothing at all to do, certainly no muscular fatigue to sustain, while it procures for him good, unfailing wages, besides a healthy workshop gratis." I concur, dear Andrew. When I first learned that factory workers voiced discontent at their menial occupations, the former was my response. Unfortunately, the working class fails to grasp the joy in their reality and tends to lash out irrationally [often using molotov coctails and other household explosives]. Whole governments are based on this insanity. [China, Russia, Laos, Vietnam, France, Detroit]

Exhale, exhale more. Feel the weight of living float off your shoulders. This is the reality of the factory worker. Yes, my friends, factory work is dehumanizing. Yes, it turns man into an "appendage of the machine." Yes, it destroys the family ties that bond and unite us. But, is it evil? 

Of course not. Early Christian mystics [who got so many other things wrong] got it right by claiming: the journey toward God is journey into darkness. As we get closer to get God, we get farther away from humanity. Factory work is the most efficient at destroying the former. Therefore, dehumanizing factory work is a journey toward God. The less human we are, the closer to God we become. The fewer ties to humanity that constrain us, the easier it becomes to rise above existence toward the heavens.

We must understand the modern implications of this conclusion. Clearly, a wave of contentedness should wash over the huddled masses. Cries will be silenced not just in the Great America, but o'er the entire earth. In fact, as Americans we can look at everything we use [clothes, electronics, musical instruments, etc.] and know that they played a part in bringing one lucky human closer to God.

Naysayers will point to my early argument regarding suffering and say "isn't this a contradiction?" No, I never contradict myself. Dictum 1 insures I am always right. I do not know what would happen if I contradicted myself, God only knows. To be sure, Human Attrition is not suffering, it is beautiful and Godly. Suffering still plays no part in the Christian experience.

Now get back to the assembly line.

Calhoun out.

"Destroyer"

The Houn appears before a Congress of thieves, standing atop an oak lectern inside the capitol chambers. Men and women stop, frozen as the day they would die. 

"A horrible sect of our Great Religion spreads a message of folly among its parishioners. No doubt, one can trace this sect's motivations back to secular audiences known for using illicit substances at music festivals. But alas, the issue remains. I shall attempt to cleanse the reader of their influence. I speak of course, of War and our Religion.

They spout the following: Christianity is a faith of peace [pause for angry cry], Christians are to turn the other cheek, Christians have to 'justify' violent action. Bah! They say the Gospel refutes the past. They say it reverses the glory won in battle by the Israelites of old. They say that modernity deserves a Christian Church that preaches non-resistance.

To be sure, this is not one sect, but several. One claims non-resistance, another justification, one preaches 'realism'. But let us be clear: none of these routes will lead us to victory. There is not a single iota of truth within these theories. In fact, the true evidence of their treachery is all too apparent with a closer look into each. 

To Non-resistors: I ask, what will you do when Satan begins chopping down your door? Nothing of course! You will let yourself be overtaken. You will let yourself become a victim. The Good Book cannot save those who will not save themselves. One cannot flounder peaceably in matters of life and death. This is the way the world ends.

To Justifiers: Show yourself! Jump atop this very stage so that I may look at you. What will you do when the circumstance cannot be justified? What will you do when your own dogma restricts your answer? You have attempted to make exceptions, you have understood the folly of the former. Yet you create a rigid doctrine that will serve only to restrict. Your failing will be the endless debate your theory produces. 

To Realists: You follow in the footsteps of H. Kissinger. These footsteps are great and perilous. But above all, they are terrible. In truth, you have been willing to do what is necessary. You have been willing to fight the world in all its evil. But your fault is greater than all the others: Incompetence. I have never met a realist that knew what they were doing. I have never met one who could fully commit to the ramifications of their beliefs. 

Listen! All ye who subscribe to these snake oils. You may properly require a solution. Fear not, for when have I failed in provision? My solution is brash. It is simplistic, and consequently, beautiful. And so, I shall provide it in first person:

I am the Destroyer. I am the sword of my religion. I decide where to fight and when to fight. No one offends me, they merely attempt to defend themselves. For my sphere of influence is the earth. All who live on this earth are subject to the strength in my arm. I do not distinguish between friend and enemy. My mind is America, my heart is my Religion. My appendages serve both. 

Christians are not restrained any more than atheists in questions of warfare. In fact, with the Divine at their shoulders, they are permitted far greater liberties. We need not 'justify' our fights with philosophical squabbling. Our name is our justification. Perfection has its benefits. This is America, this is God's country. We go with God into the savage regions of the world. Our intentions are irrelevant.

So, with every great act of violence cry: "God wills it!" Carry the knowledge that the Book does not restrain you, it empowers you. Toil not over the theories of Thunderheads [Yoder, Niebuhr, Augustine]. As I have said before: discard them and embrace truth."

There were no survivors.

Krampus Never Sleeps

Proclamation: Krampus Never Sleeps.

Now, I understand many in this great country are unaware of significance or even the existence of the aforementioned creature. To be sure, America has put an ocean between itself and fair Krampus [though escape is futile]. But, I am ahead of myself. Let me first [as I often do] educate the reader.

Krampus is...[Alas, such a statement is dangerous, for where am I to begin?]

These are his anthropological origins. First, Krampus is a demon. He is from what many can refer to as "the old country," that is, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Croatia. He appears as the counterpoint for a much beloved bunch of hogwash known as Santa Claus. Yes, Krampus is an Austria Christmas Demon. He is the Hammer of Judgement for those children who abandon perfect morality. 

Now, let us discuss his appearance. Many artist's renderings of the Creature abide, but I will assert here that none of them do him justice. Indeed, I have provided the reader with an image to marinate over, but it is only starting point. Like most demons, he certainly has horns. Surely he carries tree branches and rusty chains with which to beat naughty children. Surely he totes a basket in which to place his most infamous offenders. But these images do nothing to portray his true identity. 

The physical descriptions are elements of his work, not of his nature. His nature is not physical. He is a Specter. Part shadow, all judgement. He is a wraith of the known and unknown world. He is absolute evil. Yet, he is purposeful. He is mission oriented. He provides a service. He adds a balance to the equation of Christmas and indeed, the world. 

It is not enough to know that something is wrong. We must know that something is punishable [for men are shabby]. We must know that morality has teeth. Krampus has plenty. I write, of course, of a structural authority. The world would be a terrible place without authority. Freedom is great between the hedges, but beyond those hedges we must be told there are monsters. 

So rejoice, dear reader, Krampus never sleeps. Therefore, order never sleeps. In all things, especially the realm of ethics, it is important to inquire: "Will my actions merit a visit from Krampus?" This is a practical question to prevent a visit from a demon. However, it is also a question that yields a broader theme, which I have alluded to herein. 

Do not fall into the sin of fearlessness. It only takes a moment for morality to vanish and our better angels to disappear. And you will know that moment by its trail of dread. It will be your last. You will hear the chains a'coming. As all fearless men do. Trust me, for I fear only for your safety. After all, Krampus would never visit the Houn since his chains are reserved for those in the wrong. 

Cahoun out.