This Is a Sensitive Subject

There’s something that I want to talk about, and, yet, I don’t want to talk about. It’s kind of a sensitive subject, and some people aren’t comfortable with it (including me), but it is something that should be addressed, so I will try to address it as discreetly (if somewhat indirectly) as I can. The expression is, everybody does it, but nobody ever talks about it. Well, some people do talk about it. Most of the people that do talk about it, probably shouldn’t be talking about it. Most of what I’ve heard about it ultimately turned out to be wrong. Some people get it right, but that seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. When Christians talk about it, and get it wrong, they usually refer to Onan and Tamar in Genesis 38. Basically, what happened was this: Tamar was an attractive young woman, and she married Er, who was the firstborn son of Judah, but Er was a wicked man, and God slew him (the Bible doesn’t tell us what Er did that was so terrible, it isn’t important to this discussion, anyway). Judah’s second son was Onan, and, apparently Onan wasn’t a particularly righteous individual, either. Tradition had it that if a widow is left childless, her late husband’s nearest male relative was supposed to ensure that she had children, to be the heirs of her late husband. Now Onan was in an interesting position. He had been one of three sons, but now he was one of two sons. As it stood, if his father died, Onan only had to split the inheritance with one other brother (Shelah, Judah’s youngest son). If Tamar had a son, then her son was entitled to an equal share, half of which would come from Onan’s inheritance, and the other half from Shelah’s. I would assume that Onan could have simply refused to have anything to do with her, but he didn’t (that might have gotten him into trouble, too, but I don’t think nearly as much trouble). Quite frankly, if you read the Scriptures, what Onan did was pretty underhanded. He took his pleasure with Tamar, but did it in such a way as to be as sure as he could that she wouldn’t have children. God killed Onan, too. Suddenly, Shelah was an only child, which created an awkward situation for Judah, but that’s a whole different story. Now, some have said that what Onan did was, basically, that thing that everybody does, but nobody ever talks about (my apologies for the obtuse reference, but, as I said, I don’t want to talk about it). Onan went through the motions of what he was supposed to do, but in such a way as to defeat the purpose for which he was allowed to do it in the first place. It would be like if I loaned you my car to drive to work, and you decided, since you had my car, to call in sick, and drive my car to the mall, instead. There’s nothing wrong with going to the mall, but if you told me you needed to borrow my car to get to work, and then didn’t go to work, you have no right to drive my car. Does that make sense? Some have even used Onan and Tamar as an example to try to prove that birth control is wrong. I don’t see that in the Scriptures. Quite frankly, if God wants you to have children, he can find a way around whatever form of birth control you happen to be using. Onan’s problem was the conscious decision to do what he wanted to do, while trying to make sure that what was supposed to be the intended result didn’t happen. He got greedy; he wanted to have Tamar and keep his inheritance, too. It was an act of open rebellion; that’s what got Onan killed. Incidentally, Tamar ended up being a little sneaky, too, but, again, that’s another story, but King David’s lineage (and Jesus’) is traced through Tamar’s son, Pharez, which, if nothing else, should tell us that she was never the problem. By the way, if you have read all of this, and are still wondering what in the heck this is about; don’t worry about it, I suspect that you really don’t need to know.

Propaganda

There was a story that went around back during the cold war; it probably wasn't true, but it's an interesting tale: The Soviet ambassador to the United States asked the Secretary of State for some help with an 'urgent' matter; it seems that there was a dire shortage of birth control in Russia. Was there any way the the United States could come up with 1,000 such devices? and, by the way, these need to be big enough to fit Russian men. The dimensions given made it clear that this was an attempt at some form of anti-American propaganda; either the United States simply refused to deliver the requested devices, in which case the Soviets could accuse us of being uncaring (after all, in the midst of the cold war, the last thing we should want would be Soviet procreation), or we admitted that we didn't have any that size, in which case the Soviets would advertise that American men are considerably less manly that Russian men. The Secretary of State promised to look into it, and to accommodate the request if it were at all possible. He immediately got on the phone to the leading American manufacturer of such devices and explained the situation, including the Soviet propaganda angle. The manufacturer understood, and promised their best effort. They re-tooled their plant to produce devices of the given specifications, and called the company that supplied their packaging (we can't very well pile up 1,000 prophylactics on a plane and fly them to Russia, now can we?). Fortunately, the packaging company also manufactured pizza boxes, so they simply imprinted the appropriate logo onto 1,000 extra-large pizza boxes. Overnight, the devices were manufactured, boxed, and ready for shipment, just as though these were common items in the United States. Not only that, but someone at the packaging company took the time to stamp each one of the boxes, "Size: Small."
Lately there has been a lot of talk about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanted to lay a wreath at ground zero, to pay his respects to the 9/11 dead. Some have theorized that he may want to pay his respects more to the 19 terrorists than to the 2,948 victims, but I doubt it. The terrorists were Arab Sunnis, he is a Persian Shiite. I have to believe that he has some ulterior motive, if only to make himself look good in the eyes of the International community. I'm not sure what is going on in his head, but I do think that he wants to distance himself from Al-Qaeda. Maybe in this process he will attempt to make accusations against our government, that they knew about, or even conspired with, the terrorist plot. It would not surprise me. What I have a hard time believing is that this guy can come into our country, wanting to lay a wreath at ground zero, and we can't come up with anything better to do with this than to refuse him? Has it occurred to anybody that his whole purpose may simply be to propagandize our refusal to let him pay his respects? Surely we can come up with a way to let him pay his respects and then spin it, so that at the very least, it shows that even radical Muslims like Ahmadinejad don't agree with Al-Qaeda. Can't we? Are we really that pathetic?
By the way, his visit to Columbia University didn't turn out the way anybody planned. I have to commend Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger. Some have criticised Mr. Bollinger for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak at all, but I would have to say that at least the speech was given context. If I were going to criticise, I would point out that it's rude to invite someone to speak and then introduce them in such a way as to suggest that we really shouldn't be listening to what this person has to say. On the other hand, Mr. Bollinger had a responsibility to his students to make sure that they knew Ahmadinejad's background.

Update: (September 27th) I've given more thought to Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia, and I have decided that whatever good Bollinger did by prefacing the speech with criticism was outweighed by the sheer rudeness of it. Maybe if he had saved his comments until after? I don't know. Really, the best thing would have been just to not invite the man to speak in the first place.