The Voice Mysterious

Commentary on Life, the Universe and Everything

Is homosexuality a sin?

May 19th, 2012

In all the bible there are only three real places homosexuality is referenced by action.  Those are Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 and Romans 1:24, 26, 27. There is also another mentioned linked in 1 Kings 14:24 but there the word used is Qadesh more meaning a male devotee to idols and idolatry, the connotation of prostitution is there but it should be applied more to the thought of one prostituting oneself to false gods than being a homosexual.

In Leviticus 18:22 there is explicit mention that male on male sexual congress is unclean and later in 20:13 that any men who engage in the practice were to be put to death. However the passage is curiously absent of addressing female homosexuality. It is not because the words are gender agnostic because later in the passage it mentions females lying with animals as being an unclean as well.

Leviticus 20:13 only deals with punishments for those that commit the act of male homosexuality or bestiality.

By this it can be argued that the mention of homosexuality was perhaps not a dictate from G*d but something more intrinsic to the patriarchal society that was ancient Israel. With these dictates it safeguarded the women from being “befouled” in anyway and made sure that the only sexual intercourse engaged in was that for the procreation and furtherance of the Israelite line.

The Epistle to the Romans was a letter written by Paul to the church in Roma. Some could argue that no greater harm has been done to the early Christian church than that was done by Paul. The fact that the early Roman church decided to include the Pauline letters as doctrine could either be seen as divine inspiration or a grab for power. This is due to the fact that while Paul seeks to put much into the hands of believers in the way of self-empowerment he also heavily restricts them with new rules and dictates that were never mentioned by Yeshua in all his ministry.

In Romans the passage chastising the Romans for their wicked ways.  In particular it is a passage about how the philosophers believing themselves wise fell from grace and were abandoned in their unholiness and uncleanliness. And in this G*d left them to their own devices. And in this they abandoned themselves to debauchery which was to include the sexual sins of male homosexuality. However it is noted here that there is mention of females turning in their lusts to that which was contrary to nature. Which by the Greek meaning they turned the use of their sexual nature away from that of procreation to something else but that something else is never explicitly mentioned, whereas male on male sexual congress and bestiality is. So once again it could be argued that homosexuality was not a sin against G*d but one against a patriarchal society wherein the propagation of one’s line was the main reason for sex. This mindset would later be translated by the Holy Roman Church to be doctrine that sex was only for procreation and not recreation.

Therefore one could argue that the equation of all homosexuality as sin against G*d is not correct, but instead a holdover of outdated societal restrictions. Further evidence can be seen by looking at the other laws laid out in Leviticus that the Church has deemed to remove due to their outdated ideals. Laws regarding slavery as a form of debt restitution or the strictures calling for the death of all soothsayers (witches). Perhaps this is now the time for the Churches to remove these holdovers from the patriarchal dominated cultures of the past and embrace a more compassionate and open society wherein one is able to love another regardless of their gender.

What do you think, is homosexuality actually some affront to a divine creator or is it just a holdover of a dying and outdated mentality?

Trayvon Martin

March 20th, 2012

We first heard about this story from Felonious Munk and then later from Phil DeFranco. Munk’s video had a number to call to demand action. Unfortunately that video was pulled to private.

However here is the video by Phil DeFranco

What do you think should Zimmerman have been released? Was the action actually self defense? Or was this just a racially motivated crime in the guise of self defense?

Who is Joseph Kony? #KONY2012

March 8th, 2012

Visit Kony 2012 and take action

`

Visit Kony 2012 and take action

2012.03.09 Update
There has been lots of talk about how this campaign actually hurts the cause because Kony has not been active in a few years and this new attention may cause him to start recruiting again in fear of being captured. Also that the organization Invisible Children misappropriates their funds with only a small portion of the donation going to those affected and even then that money going to the Ugandan government which is said to be nearly as bad as Kony himself to their citizens.

Regardless we here at the Voice Mysterious wish to present both sides of each issue when we are able and have provided links below that speak on the issues stated above. We hope that whatever the truth people like Joseph Kony are stopped for the benefit of all.

The Vlogbrothers blog on Kony 2012

A critical analysis of Kony 2012

SOPA/PIPA – Actions you can take. (Courtesy of Your Anon News)

January 14th, 2012

Update (2012.01.18)
Adam Curry’s Statement that SOPA/PIPA/OPEN are red herrings

Courtesy of Your Anon News:

STOP SOPA

 THE ESSENTIALS:

  • Summary and bill text of SOPA – H.R. 3261: link
  • Summary and bill text of PIPA – S.968: link
  • Congressmen who support SOPA and how much money in donations they received to support it: link

 

IN DEPTH:

  • Companies that support SOPA – link
  • Companies that oppose SOPA & PIPA – link
  • Video: What is PIPA and how will it affect you? link
  • SOPA 101: An Infographic – link
  • Tech Law & Policy: House takes Senate’s bad Internet censorship bill, tries making it worse – Analysis of SOPA & PIPA – link

GET INVOLVED:

  • Take Action Checklist to Stop Censorship – link
  • Join @YourAnonNews and @AnonymousIRC and pledge not to tweet between 8AM-8PM EST (1300-0100 UTC) on 18 January [check your local timezone here - Use hashtags #SOPAblackout and #J18
  • Add the following banners to your Twitter pic: “CENSORED” – link | “STOP SOPA” – link
  • How to contact Facebook and Google to support the January 18 SOPA blackout – link
  • Contact your local Representative with info and a widget to find them by EFF and Wired for Change – link

Medical Discrimination at its worst.

January 13th, 2012

There is a story about a family trying to get a transplant for their little girl. She is developmentally challenged and the hospital has refused her treatment due to this condition. Here is the story:

I am going to try and tell you what happened to us on January 10, 2012, in the conference room in the Nephrology department at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

We arrived for our regular Nephrology visit with Amelia’s doctor who has seen her for the last three years. She examines Amelia and sends us for labs. I ask about the transplant and she says we have about six months to a year until she needs one. She tells us she reserved the conference room and when we get back from labs, we can meet with the transplant team and he can tell us about the transplant process.

After the labs, Amelia falls asleep in her stroller and we are called back to a large room with a screen and about sixteen chairs. Joe and I get comfortable and leave a space between us to fit the stroller. After about five minutes, a doctor and a social worker enter the room. They sit across from us but also leave a space between the two of them.

The doctor begins to talk and I listen intently on what he is saying. He has a Peruvian accent and is small, with brown hair, a mustache and is about sixty five years old. He gets about four sentences out ( I think it is an introduction) and places two sheets of paper on the table. I can’t take my eyes off the paper. I am afraid to look over at Joe because I suddenly know where the conversation is headed. In the middle of both papers, he highlighted in pink two phrases. Paper number one has the words, “Mentally Retarded” in cotton candy pink right under Hepatitis C. Paper number two has the phrase, “Brain Damage” in the same pink right under HIV. I remind myself to focus and look back at the doctor. I am still smiling.

He says about three more sentences when something sparks in my brain. First it is hazy, foggy, like I am swimming under water. I actually shake my head a little to clear it. And then my brain focuses on what he just said.

I put my hand up. “Stop talking for a minute. Did you just say that Amelia shouldn’t have the transplant done because she is mentally retarded. I am confused. Did you really just say that?”

The tears. Oh, the damn tears. Where did they come from? Niagara Falls. All at once. There was no warning. I couldn’t stop them. There were no tissues in conference room so I use my sleeve and my hands and I keep wiping telling myself to stop it.

I point to the paper and he lets me rant a minute. I can’t stop pointing to the paper. “This phrase. This word. This is why she can’t have the transplant done.”

“Yes.”

I begin to shake. My whole body trembles and he begins to tell me how she will never be able to get on the waiting list because she is mentally retarded.

A bit of hope. I sit up and get excited.

“Oh, that’s ok! We plan on donating. If we aren’t a match, we come from a large family and someone will donate. We don’t want to be on the list. We will find our own donor.”

“Noooo. She—is—not—eligible –because—of—her—quality– of –life—Because—of—her—mental—delays” He says each word very slowly as if I am hard of hearing.

“STOP IT NOW!” The anger is taking over. Thank God. Why did it take so long to get here?

The social worker is writing some things down. Not sure what. She casually gets up to take a call. My eyes follow her to the phone and I see Joe’s face. His mouth is open, his face is pale and he is staring straight ahead of him at the white board.

Rage fills the room. I point in his little, brown pudgy face. “Do not talk about her quality of life. You have no idea what she is like. We have crossed many, many road blocks with Amelia and this is just one more. So, you don’t agree she should have it done? Fine. But tell me who I talk to next because SHE WILL HAVE IT DONE AND IT WILL BE AT CHOP.”

I see the social worker quickly writing down what I just said. Joe hasn’t moved. Amelia is still asleep.

The social worker decides to join the conversation. “Well, you know a transplant is not forever. She will need another one in twelve years. And then what? And do you have any idea of the medications she will need to take to keep her healthy?”

I speak through gritted together. “YES, I HAVE DONE ALL MY RESEARCH.”

She smirks a little. “Well, what happens when she is thirty and neither of you are around to take care of her. What happens to her then? Who will make sure she takes her medications then?”

In a voice that mimics hers, I snort, “Well, what happens if you die tomorrow? Who will take care of your children? Your responsibilities at work?” She breathes in and her eyes widens. “Right!” I throw at her. “Neither of us can predict the future and we shouldn’t try. But if Amelia does not have this transplant she has no future!”

The doctor interrupts. He puts his hands up and tries to take a stern voice with me. “These medications she has to take after the transplant, they are very dangerous. They can cause seizures. We have to get the dose exact. They may cause brain damage.”

“DO OTHER CHIILDREN WHO HAVE A TRANSPLANT TAKE THIS MEDICATION?”

“Yes, but it is different for her. She is already brain damaged and mentally retarded.”

He pauses as if he is choosing his words carefully. “I have been warned about you. About how involved you and your famliy are with Amelia.”

The devil himself could not have produced a more evil laugh. “Ha! Warned! That is funny! You have no idea…”

I am beginning to realize I want this over with so I can move onto the next person who will help me with the transplant. So I say the words and ask the questions I have been avoiding.

“So you mean to tell me that as a doctor, you are not recommending the transplant, and when her kidneys fail in six months to a year, you want me to let her die because she is mentally retarded? There is no other medical reason for her not to have this transplant other than she is MENTALLY RETARDED!”

“Yes. This is hard for me, you know.”

My eyes burn through his soul as if I could set him on fire right there. “Ok, so now what? This is not acceptable to me. Who do I talk to next?”

“I will take this back to the team. We meet once a month. I will tell them I do not recommend Amelia for a transplant because she is mentally retarded and we will vote.”

“And then who do I see?”

“Well, you can then take it the ethics committee but as a team we have the final say. Feel free to go somewhere else. But it won’t be done here.”

They both get up and leave the room.

I look at Joe who is sobbing trying to get the stroller and Amelia’s backpack. I break down with him before we head to the parking garage.

I hope you are disturbed, troubled, distressed, and pissed off when you read this. I hope you share it with many, many people. Although I did not know this yesterday, this is very common and happens across the map. I have researched and researched and researched transplants and the MR, as they are called in the medical journals, and it is appalling. We are in the year 2012 and my child still does not have the right to live, the right to a transplant, because she is developmentally delayed.

Source: Wolfhirschhorn.org – Brick Walls

So do you think these types of decisions should be left to doctors, medical panels and the State or to the families involved?

Listed on the source site are comments and other details if you wish to show your support of the family.
If you think this is unjust be sure to make your voice heard. Silence now only strengthens the case for such judgements to be passed.

What does H.R.3166 — Enemy Expatriation Act (Introduced in House – IH) really do?

January 9th, 2012

Currently the section of the United States Code states:

§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

This would then be changed by HR 3166 to read:

§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years;
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years;
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer;
(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state;
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State;
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense;
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction; or
(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term `hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.

I am not entirely sure what the removal of the ‘or’ does to the section of code but the inclusion of the new statement would make it so that any persons who engage in hostilities against the United States or support those who do are in violation and can have their citizenship removed. It goes on to clarify that hostilities only mean “any conflict subject to the laws of war.” Which in some cases have included acts of terrorism so in that aspect can mean anything which goes against the status quo and disrupts the daily functioning of any government agency or endangers the public safety.

The bill goes on to modify the following other section of the United States Code:

§ 1483. Restrictions on loss of nationality
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 1481 (a) of this title, no national of the United States can lose United States nationality under this chapter while within the United States or any of its outlying possessions, but loss of nationality shall result from the performance within the United States or any of its outlying possessions of any of the acts or the fulfillment of any of the conditions specified in this Part if and when the national thereafter takes up a residence outside the United States and its outlying possessions.
(b) A national who within six months after attaining the age of eighteen years asserts his claim to United States nationality, in such manner as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe, shall not be deemed to have lost United States nationality by the commission, prior to his eighteenth birthday, of any of the acts specified in paragraphs (3) and (5) of section 1481 (a) of this title.

To:

§ 1483. Restrictions on loss of nationality
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (6), (7), and (8) of section 1481 (a) of this title, no national of the United States can lose United States nationality under this chapter while within the United States or any of its outlying possessions, but loss of nationality shall result from the performance within the United States or any of its outlying possessions of any of the acts or the fulfillment of any of the conditions specified in this Part if and when the national thereafter takes up a residence outside the United States and its outlying possessions.
(b) A national who within six months after attaining the age of eighteen years asserts his claim to United States nationality, in such manner as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe, shall not be deemed to have lost United States nationality by the commission, prior to his eighteenth birthday, of any of the acts specified in paragraphs (3) and (5) of section 1481 (a) of this title.

This section makes it so that even if you are currently residing in the United States or one of its territories you can still lose citizenship if you engage in any of the activities proscribed in sections 6, 7 or 8.

These amendments are worrisome in that they could be used in vague and ambiguous ways to determine who is in violation of the code and therefore subject to removal of nationality. Here is a paper that covers some of the new interpretations of the Laws of War.

What do you think?

Science is fun: Why atoms are mostly empty space

December 28th, 2011

Professor Brian Cox is a physicist in England, very well-known there as a popularizer of science. The reasons for this are many-fold, including his ubiquity across media (including podcasts, Twitter, and of course TV)… but also because he has an infectious enthusiasm for science coupled with a boyish charm.

This was all on display recently when he hosted a great segment on the BBC’s show A Night With The Stars, where he simply and effectively demonstrates why atoms are mostly empty space:

Pretty cool, isn’t it? It helps if you can enlist Simon Pegg to help, too!

I like this demo a lot. On a very tiny scale, objects act like both particles and waves. On a big scale, like our solar system, we can think of planets as discrete particles, interacting through gravity only, and it works pretty well. Our semi-evolved brains want to think of electrons that way as well: little spheres whizzing around atomic nuclei. But that’s not the way the Universe works on the quantum scale; electrons act like waves, and that means they can interfere with each other. When a crest meets a trough they cancel, when a crest meets a crest they add together. If you have a wave bouncing around inside a box the result can be chaos.

I like to use the example of sitting in a tub, and rhythmically pushing your body along its length with your toes. It’s hard to do unless the rhythm is just right; otherwise the waves smack into each other chaotically and it’s a mess. But get the pattern timed just right and you’re in sync. That timing is just a simple multiple (like 1 or 1/2) of the time it takes a wave to move from one end of the tub to the other. You can actually feel it as you push; the correct timing just feels natural.

Electrons around an atomic nucleus work the same way. It’s more complicated than your bathtub, but the principle is the same. The electrons can only exist where the wave crests and troughs add up correctly. They literally cannot exist anywhere else. They’re like standing waves, as Brian shows.

We teach kids that atoms are like little solar systems, but that model is really bad! In principle, planets can orbit the Sun at any distance — give a planet more orbital energy and it’ll move away from the Sun and continue orbiting, happy as you please. But electrons can’t do that. They can only be at energy levels where they don’t interfere with themselves (and each other). It’s more like a staircase; they can only move up or down by discrete amounts. Once you figure this out, a ton of stuff becomes possible: lasers, semiconductors, fluorescent bulbs, atomic bombs… it’s quantum mechanics, and it’s a huge, huge field of science.

And it’s all because, as Brian demonstrates, a rope held at both ends won’t vibrate at any old frequency. Amazing, isn’t it?

Post script: can you imagine a show like this running on American TV? No, I can’t either, unless they had a toll number you could call to vote for atoms being a hoax perpetrated by Big Little Science.

How United States legislation will destroy the internet.

December 19th, 2011


WTF is SOPA ? aka The American Government trying to ruin the internet

Update:
We here at The Voice Mysterious are against SOPA and its sibling act Protect IP. While both may have been drafted with the good intention of protecting intellectual property from theft both are heavy handed and much too broad to effectively combat the issue. In fact both acts will do more harm than good.

In addition with the recent GoDaddy debacle we would also like to say that we do not support them in their stance for either of the acts and while we are currently hosted and registered through their services this is only due to our current financial situation. As soon as we are able to move we will happily do so.

The Voice Mysterious

Commentary on Life, the Universe and Everything