Citing Psalm 109 to curse Obama

The Old Testament is a minefield for the unwary who would cite it for authority on action. A lot of bad conduct can be sanctioned by selective quotation, for, as Shakespeare notes, the devil can cite scripture for his purposes. The Old Testament language and style are quite alien to modern usage and exacerbated by the fact that many Bible-quoters like to use the King James version, which is also quite alien to modern ears.

The latest misappropriation of the Bible by people professing to be Christians is quoting a passage from Psalm 109, which I have highlighted below, in the context of the whole, which is the proper way to consider all Bible passages.

the KGV version:

The Psalms

109
A Cry for Vengeance
To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.
1
Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise;
2
for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
3
They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause.
4
For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer.
5
And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.
6
Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.
7
When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
8
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

9
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
10
Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
11
Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor.
12
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
13
Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
14
Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15
Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
16
Because that he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man,
that he might even slay the broken in heart.
17
As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing,
so let it be far from him.
18
As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones.
19
Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually.
20
Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the LORD, and of them that speak evil against my soul.
21
But do thou for me, O GOD the Lord, for thy name's sake: because thy mercy is good, deliver thou me.
22
For I am poor and needy, and my heart is wounded within me.
23
I am gone like the shadow when it declineth: I am tossed up and down as the locust.
24
My knees are weak through fasting; and my flesh faileth of fatness.
25
I became also a reproach unto them: when they looked upon me they shook their heads.

26
Help me, O LORD my God: O save me according to thy mercy:
27
that they may know that this is thy hand; that thou, LORD, hast done it.
28
Let them curse, but bless thou: when they arise, let them be ashamed;
but let thy servant rejoice.
29
Let mine adversaries be clothed with shame; and let them cover themselves with their own confusion, as with a mantle.
30
I will greatly praise the LORD with my mouth; yea, I will praise him among the multitude.
31
For he shall stand at the right hand of the poor, to save him from those that condemn his soul.

They are happy to quote verses 8 and 9, but I think other verses such as 2-5, 17 and 18, 28 and 31 might be more appropriate.

Interesting discussion of science and faith

http://network.nature.com/people/rpg/blog/2009/03/21/on-the-nature-of-faith-part-2

In Honor of Richard and Mildred

Mildred Loving's statement on June 12 2007 , the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling:

Loving for All
By Mildred Loving*

Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007, The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in1958, it wasn't to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didn't get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn't allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family.

You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the "crime" of marrying the wrong kind of person.

Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed.

The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malayand red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25years exile. We left, and got a lawyer.

Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn't have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men, 'a basic civil right.' "

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love.

But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kindof person" for me to marry.

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all.

That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Discriminating against atheist soldiers

Details here: http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_04_27-2008_05_03.shtml#1209389017

But the thumbnail sketch is that an atheist soldier organized a meeting of freethinkers. A self-described "Christian" officer came, berated the participants and threatened the organizer with UCMJ action and a bar to re-enlistment. The soldier subsequently experienced negative personnel actions and has filed a lawsuit.

Perhaps unsurprisingly one of the first posters on the Volokh blog defended the officer's actions on unit cohesion grounds.

First, it should be clear that under military regulations it was the officer's conduct that was out of bounds, but it may be a sign of how widespread the problem of improper religious influence in the military is becoming that there's no indication that the officer's superiors took action against his improper conduct.

But setting aside that larger issue for the moment, I think it's simply amazing to me that Christians of this particular flavor and their defenders are so profoundly blind to the purpose behind these rules and how they benefit from them.

I mean, following their unit cohesion arguments to their conclusion would require that every unit be segregated into like-minded coreligionists. Indeed, it would require an unending series of dividing, defining and discriminating that would destroy the very cohesion it seeks to enhance. Would squads of Jews be comfortable relying on fire support from an artillery battery of white supremacists? Would a flight of jet fighters flown by Orthodox Jews provide enthusiastic cover for a bomber group of Mormons? Would a destroyer manned by supply-side Republicans risk itself escorting an ammunition ship "womanned" by card-carrying members of NOW?

Any trip down such a road would be incompatible with the army of a republic. The sniper in Saving Private Ryan prayed as he slaughtered (presumably Christian) German soldiers without apparently bothering the sensibilities of his Catholic and Jewish squad mates in the slightest. Saving Private Ryan trafficked in cliches, of course, but the cliche reflects a set of values. The stereotypical U.S. rifle squad of war movies, whether set in World War II, Vietnam or Iraq reflects the diversity of America.

And further, the religionists seem also profoundly ignorant of history and what it shows are the consequences of their philosophy.
Hey, idiots, it's been tried before.
What makes them assume that it will be their brand of faith that gets to be on top? Do they really want the Wiccans to decide what the communal values will be? The Scientologists? The Catholics? How about Wahabbists? Hey, maybe even the freaking Atheists will be the dominant belief system!
Oh, what? "Our faith will be the top one because it's God's and true!"
Well, brain-in-a-rock, in case you haven't noticed, God doesn't seem to see any reason why his believers shouldn't experience some persecution now and then.

Mt:5:11: Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Mt:10:18: And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
Mk:13:9: But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

As a matter of fact, being oppressed seems to be good for faith-building. It's the fat and free who can most easily live their lives thinking they don't need God.

So the Good Major who thought he had the right to browbeat the E-4 over his lack of religious belief should ponder how he'd like it if some Mormon general officer came down and tried to impress upon him how "helpful" it would be for the major's career if he would just read the Book of Mormon before his next officer evaluation report was due.