Say this for Steve King: He gets your attention.
The Congressman from Iowa's 4th District moved, uh, heaven and earth the other day by stating quite casually that, without rape or incest, the human race wouldn't exist. Thus, he concluded, banning abortion even after rape and incest is perfectly reasonable since, hey, more births perpetuate the human race, ain't-a?
Stop rolling your eyes. He can find justification. So can you. It's on Billy Graham's website.
You have to think that Franklin Graham, Billy's son and no wallflower when it comes to twisted political theory and being a 45 apologist, has maintained the site in the wake of his father's passing. Billy Graham has become something of a brand name, after all, kind of the Babe Ruth of preachers.
It's also a place where you can find biblical apologies, too. Like for the origins of the human race.
Every so often, it returns to Facebook: Someone in my 'friend' realm regenerates the site that says, interestingly, that Adam and Eve had two sons and some daughters, and well, the proliferation of the human race simply had to have taken place by, uh, that continued intermingling through the generations. Which is to say: the fact that there even was a next generation had to mean that brothers and sisters had to, uh, mingle. Significantly. Maybe a lot.
The site then says: Now, think about that. Take all the time you need.
Yup. If the Bible is the word of God, then somebody had to say that it's all right for brothers and sisters to have sex, so more and more children could be created. From there came first cousins and then second cousins, thank goodness, so we could avoid lawsuits way back then because you know, it would have gotten in the way of ark-building and other things.
Which is pretty much what Billy Graham's website says: that God granted permission for all that intra-familial sex to happen, kind of a one-off, but it could never happen again. (It's right there.) Which is to say that something that wasn't really sinful at one point now is really sinful, forever and ever, amen.
Pretty much taken for granted now, right? First of all, offspring from such unions becomes very risky indeed, which is why there are now laws against it. And, well, any consideration that such things should now happen is normally received with phrases like, Oh, ick. Never mind sinful, it's just a bad idea. And that takes care of that.
So who said it was okay way back then? God said. Who said that God said? Billy Graham. He's gone now, but we all know where he is, so--any questions?
Which brings us back to Steve King, who, ridiculous and offensive as everybody says he sounds, is doing no more than doubling down on what Billy Graham would be saying, and his son is most likely saying: Though it was a biggie, the apple had already been bitten, the original sin had already been done, so what the heck--let's let humanity commit a really huuuuuge (sorry, I know what that's quoting) sin so we can even have the discussion on what's a sin and what isn't. I mean, if there are no people around, how can we have the discussion? Kind of existential, huh?
But as usual, all this leaps over several pieces in this pseudo-intellectual chess game, kind of like allowing a pawn to leap right in front of a (bad pun) king and say, "Check!" First, you have to believe that there actually were a 'first two people', and that their names really were Adam and Eve. Okay, who named them? Who said so? And is that really the way humanity happened?
We know that humanity evolved. Okay, I mean, those of us, let me go out on a limb and say most of us, think that that's the way it happened, which is to say that science strongly implies it (A theory, not a mere hypothesis) but nobody knows because we weren't there. You can either think that within the process of apes becoming human, there might have been more than one occurrence of them becoming what we now refer to as men and women, so whatever names they called themselves, there probably wasn't just one Garden of Eden but most likely some caves and jungles and places like that where, you know, they pro-created at various times. (Or it may have happened as in the opening scene of "Quest for Fire," where a female is bending over at a water's edge and a male just flat decides he likes the view, can't fight the feeling, and helps himself without asking, announcing himself or even taking her to dinner. But then, that's rape. The film ends with a man and woman making love in the more traditional position, and the woman bearing the child.)
If your belief system overruns your sense of logic, then you can buy into the biblical account. Which is where Steve King and Billy Graham sit. Makes perfect sense to them, and all King's saying is: Doesn't everyone agree? His belief system has become his logic, dismissing all else.
Well, no, Steve. I don't have to agree. And your interpretation, however biblical it might be, can't and shouldn't justify a position which challenges whether society has evolved far beyond what you might think it should have, and doesn't have to accept the incipient livelihood of fetuses that are the product of acts we now consider barbaric. If the woman wants it, then all right; I know of someone who's around simply because her mother kept her after being raped.
But she didn't have to. And shouldn't have had to. Making women go on without that choice is barbaric, regaling them to a status of mere incubators for the unabashed whims of men. If you go there, then all bets are off and we regress to a world that, if it ever really existed, sure doesn't any longer. Those who are irate about this should extend, too, beyond the League of Women Voters.
Should Steve King be kicked out of Congress? You bet, by the voters of Iowa's 4th District. But then, he's just one of 435. We shouldn't take the time or trouble to expend the kind of energy it would take to interrupt a two-year term that can end the way it should. Besides, his committee status is gone, rendering him legislatively helpless. Relative to what's already in front of us, he's pretty small potatoes, a sideshow.
That kind of bother should be saved for kicking out 45. If it goes there, that would take a herculean effort. But it would be worth it. There's only one president, only one true existential threat to the country, only one enormous disaster unfolding right in front of us. If we're going to kick anybody out, he should go first.
But I've already said that. The number of House members who agree has now reached 123. And Anthony Scaramucci, of all people, has had the lights go on and now sees what's clear: 45's certifiably crazy, the people around him know it, and he needs to leave--yesterday.
His belief system ran into a torrent of facts. The truth set him free. Isn't that phrase found in the Bible? Wouldn't Billy Graham have said that, too?
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment