From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: US Politicians Twisting Scripture
Organization: Official Unix Machine of the 1992 Olympic Games
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:18:40 GMT


Kerry Stephenson writes about Jesse Jackson's use of Scripture.

> Another interesting thing is that the underlying message of his reference
> was that Mary would have been condemned by Quayle whether she had the child
> (like Murphy Brown) or had an abortion.  Now, I am not quite sure how to
> read this.  Did Jackson mean to imply that Quayle is such an idiot that he
> would condemn the Virgin Mary?

That is EXACTLY what Jesse Jackson was saying, and I think he may well be
right.  Not that Mr Quayle is, with the Gospel accounts in hand, going to call
St Mary names.  Rather that, if Mr Quayle had been living in Bethlehem at the
time, he would have attacked St Mary's morality.  ("Virgin birth?  Yeah,
right.")

Most of us would probably think something similar, but would we have made
speeches about it?  I like to imagine that, even not believing the story, I
would act with compassion toward Mary & Joseph.  Rev Jackson apparently feels
that Mr Quayle would not.  (Although, given that Mr Quayle has said he would
support his daughter if she chose to have an abortion, it may well be that Rev
Jackson spoke too soon.  It wouldn't be a first for him.  1/2 8-)


Some have said that Mary & Joseph were married; but by whose definition?  In
the US in 1992, if there aren't signatures on a piece of paper, you aren't
married.  Saying that they were `betrothed' or `married by Jewish law' is
meaningless.  In this country, what counts is the signatures on the form.

I think the point of Rev Jackson's comment is that you can't just stuff people
into your rules and see what comes out the other end.  They are people, and
each one deserves to be treated as an individual.  If you apply 1992 rules to
Mary & Joseph, you get nonsense.  But many politicians (and this is not
limited to either party) don't care if they get nonsense, they only care that
the Machine runs smoothly, that everybody has a pigeonhole, and that they get
re-elected.

The comment about how Mary & Joseph were homeless is similar.  Consider our
rules: they did not have a place of residence in the town they were in, they
did not have accomodations for the night.  (They also didn't have proper
identification, but... 8-)  If Mary & Joseph showed up in Mullica Hill, they
might be arrested them for vagrancy.  Again, when you put our rules and
categories on these individuals, you get nonsense.  The point is that
everybody is an individual, and everybody has his or her own story.  We have
rules to keep the system running; but the rules and the system are not more
important than the people.  That's the point of Rev Jackson's illustrations;
that if you make the rules more important than the people, stupidity results.


Rev Jackson apparently feels that Mr Bush and Mr Quayle have forgotten about
"a kinder, gentler nation", and that they put rules ahead of people.  They
would stick Mary in the "unwed mother" pocket and Joseph in the "homeless"
pocket, and then declare them bad role models.  We all think that would be
absurd, which is probably what Rev Jackson wanted us to think about Mr Bush
and Mr Quayle.

I don't know exactly what Rev Jackson thinks, of course, but that's what I got
out of his speech.  I don't know what Messrs Bush & Quayle think either, but
at the time the speech was given, it seemed that Rev Jackson was on the mark.

Since then, there has been some discussion about Mr Quayle's response to a
hypothetical question concerning his daughter having an abortion.  He said
that he would support his daughter, even disagreeing with the decision.  He
and Mrs Quayle seemed to disagree about what the family would do, but the
impression I got is that he considers his daughter more important than his
anti-abortion position.  I am now curious what he makes of OTHER daughters who
choose to have abortions.  If other women should go to jail, why not his own
daughter too?  Or does he mean that no women should go to jail?  I suspect we
will hear more about this as the campaign progresses.

 --

Miss Stephenson made two other comments:

> Does he recognize that the majority of people on the floor of the convention
> would have *counseled* Mary to have an abortion?

How do you know?  Gallup took a poll, did they?

> It seems to me that it is a sad day indeed when a political party can use
> the life and teachings of the Lord in service to an explicitly
> anti-Christian agenda.

It's been asked before, and I suppose it is useless to ask again, but can we
all try to refrain from assuming that our own ideas are exactly identical with
the will of God?


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Conceit is the regress of progress." -- Heracleitus
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU