A God of Reason

When I was a young boy growing up on the island of Tobago in the West Indies, my parents provided my brothers and me with the responsibility of taking care of animals – sheep, goats, cows and chickens. Our duties included taking the sheep and goats out to pasture in the morning where they were tethered to stakes or trees and allowed to graze. In the afternoon after returning home from school, we would bring the animals home for the night. I recall one afternoon we found one of the goats hanging by its rope – dead. It had been tethered on an embankment and had gotten itself entangled and slid down the bank. Unable to gets its feet safely on the ground below, the rope around its neck formed a noose choking it to death by asphyxiation. We hastily called our Dad. He concluded that because its body was quite warm, the animal had recently died. Because of our religious tradition, Dad indicated that it was unfit to eat. He called the neighbor and offered it to them, which they gladly accepted. “Why did you do that?” I asked my Dad. His explanation shaped my thinking and became the foundation for how I have made many decisions in my life with regard to religious, ethnic and social diversity.

Christians and Jews believe that the Old Testament books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy contain God’s laws for living – instructions that govern health, social interaction, diet, and worship. My Dad’s explanation was based on the following passage found in Deuteronomy 14:21 (New International Version). The passage reads as follows: “Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to the foreigner residing in any of your towns, and they may eat it, or you may sell it to any other foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God.” In the book of Leviticus, God had previously instructed the Jews to abstain from certain foods, including the flesh of animals that had been found dead. In fact, the process of slaughtering and draining the flesh of all blood is still carefully followed today in Jewish culture (Kosher meat). Leviticus 11: 39, 40 (NIV) reads, “If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches its carcass will be unclean till evening. Anyone who eats some of its carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening.”

Given the strict instructions previously given, why did God recommend that such unclean meat could be given or sold to the ‘foreigner’ for food? Did he not care about the eating habits of the non-Jew? Was he subscribing to a double standard? What is meant by the ritual cleanliness suggested in Leviticus? Are these values critical to people living in the 21st century? (In a future blog, I will express my opinion about the relevance and timeliness of these laws for society today.)

Lessons Learned
God is a God of reason. I believe that these illustrations demonstrate a God that respects the power of choice; a God that encourages people to live within the constructs of their understanding of Him; a God who does not legitimize the enforcement of values by one people on another; a God who teaches us to be tolerant; a God who allows us to choose to be wrong; a God who encourages us to reach people where they are based on their understanding of Him. Although God encouraged the Jews to be an example to all people, their example was to be one of personal holiness and personal obedience to Him rather than the imposition of our, or His, values on our neighbors. In that boyhood experience, my father taught me that respect for the choices of others is God’s supreme gift for living in a community of love and respect for each other. The current militarism of fundamentalist religious groups, be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Bhuddist, or Hindu, does not demonstrate the will of God for human beings living together in a world of religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity. The fusion of political power with the religious legalism is destined to be the death knell of a constructive and ordered society.

Season's Greetings from the Archers - 2012

We pause before the end of another year to remember God’s precious gift to us, His Son! It is also the time to reminisce on the memories and blessings of 2012. My activities have been focused around work, family, and thankfulness for another year of good health.

I again participated in two 100 mile bike rides – the Tour de Cure in March and the Ride 4 Ronald in September – to raise money for two of my favorite charities, the American Diabetes Association and the Ronald McDonald House, respectively.

This year we suffered the loss of our 25 year-old nephew, Tarek Saleh. What a wonderful young man he was, and what a tragic loss! An inspiration to all of us and especially to his cousins, his memory will ever live in our hearts. Nichole had the privilege of travelling to Guyana, for the first time in many years, to spend some time with her mother and brother.

We are blessed to see our grandsons, Chris and Caleb, grow up. Christopher (almost 10) is now in 4th grade and Caleb (4) is overjoyed to be in “big boy” school, entering pre-kindergarten this summer. Nicholas remains busy with work at Florida Hospital Celebration Health and our daughter-in-law, Erin enjoys teaching her 3rd grade class at FLEC. Lilly, and her husband, Jason are still in Waco, Texas. Earlier this year Lilly joined The Law Offices of Vic Feazell, PC and Jason drew closer to completing his PhD at Baylor University when he successfully completed his comprehensive exams, with only his dissertation to be completed.

One major highlight of the year was when Nichole and I, in August 2012, joined thousands of alumni in Trinidad and Tobago to celebrate the 85th anniversary of the University of the Southern Caribbean (formerly CUC).

We wish you and your family the joys of the Christmas season and God’s richest blessings for 2013.

Love and Blessings,

Len and Nichole

What Green Pastures, Mr Howard?

With the tragedy of Newtown, Connecticut still fresh on our minds, I flailed around trying to decide what I should post on my blog this week. It is hard to think or write without the visions of a Bushmaster, Glock, ambulances, first responders, or visions of little six-year old kids in funeral coffins swirling around in my head. We all need to grieve together. The entire nation! Maybe we should offer an offering of repentance for the shameless gun policies that make such tragedies as easy as stealing candy from a kid. Instead, we take their lives. Here, I express my personal sympathies to the many parents, siblings and extended loved ones closely connected to this tragedy. Enough of that and maybe a little distraction can be a salve to the soul in these troubling times. So, I will write about sports. Sport has always been used in our culture as a distractor – a symbol that life goes on and the struggle of yesterday is the fertilizer of tomorrow’s successes. My distractor this week is basketball, especially as my Chicago Bears crash down the standing – another disappointment to Windy City fans. So, would have believed that after the first quarter of the 2012-2013 NBA season, the Orlando Magic (12-13) would have a better record than the Los Angeles Lakers (12-14). Really? The purveyors of Vegas would be richer than Dwight Howard. The Magic traded their best player, Dwight Howard to the Lakers. The roster was gutted with a desire to rebuild a franchise that made the NBA playoffs for the last 6 years, and ironically played against the Lakers in the NBA finals in 2009. Howard joined Kobe Bryant, arguably the best player of the last decade (even if not at the present time) , Pau Gasol, a top 10 power forward , and Steve Nash, regarded as one of the best point guards in the Western Conference, and Metta World Peace. Who? Yea! That guy formerly known as, Ron Artest. Howard, after months of denials, waffling, and team disruption asked to be traded and got his wish. The bright lights of LA would certainly deliver him his much coveted NBA title. After all, LeBron James got his ring after moving from the frigid northern tundra of Cleveland to the subtropical climes of South Beach to join his friends, Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh. The season is far from over and the Lakers may yet emerge from the graveyard of lottery bound teams. My Mom used to say, “Son, the grass is not always greener on the other side!” That truism, Mr. Howard may yet discover, is not a myth.

A Case of Individual Constitutional Rights

On December 6, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) agreed to hear oral arguments for two cases: (1) An appeal to overturn California proposition 8, a ballot initiative that defined marriage as that between a man and a woman, and (2) the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that makes it illegal for married gay couples to receive certain benefits and rights afforded to heterosexual couples. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in September 1996, is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns. Since its passage, several states have attempted to codify the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, including California’s ballot initiative, Proposition 8 in November 2008, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman” is valid or recognized in California. The proposition therefore overturned a previous California Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. There are two issues of note here. First, what is the legal definition of marriage? Secondly, what is meant by the title “defense of marriage?” The law in California seeks to define marriage as only between a man and a woman and so makes homosexual unions illegal. The Supreme Court has historically been on the side of the right of citizens to determine their own behavior in private matters, previously ruling, for example, that sodomy laws are unconstitutional since they interfere with the choices and behavior of consenting adults. It is interesting however, that although sodomy is defined as sexual acts considered to be “unnatural,” and may include oral and anal sex, the laws were rarely applied to any form of sexual activity between heterosexuals. Sodomy as defined does no harm or hurt to its participants or to citizens who are not engaged in such activity, nor are participants forced to do so. In any case, any forced sexual activity, whether conducted against a juvenile or an adult is illegal. The law therefore appears to target specific individualas rather than the act itself. “Defense of marriage” is an interesting appellation applied to the law. Whose marriage is in jeopardy? Whose marriage is being defended, and against what? Does the law state anything that benefits traditional heterosexual marriages? Having been married to the same woman for more than 30 years, I don't understand how such a bill protects my marriage, or any marriage for that matter. They are many threats to marriages today and statistics suggest that approximately 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. Does homosexuality threaten this epidemic of marriage failures? Certainly not! The bill provides no benefit, tax, gift, or any aid to my marriage or to the marriages of millions of heterosexual couples who strive to maintain and strengthen their relationships on a daily basis. Although it is too early to be certain, recent studies suggest that homosexual relationships are no more unstable than heterosexual relationships, especially when common law heterosexual relationships are included. The causes of most marriage or relationship failures are the attitudes, behaviors, idiosyncrasies, and daily choices made by partners. So, how does this law defend anyone? The law then, is designed to deny the rights of certain citizens - homosexual couples, under the guise of defending marriage? In other words, the law is intended to make moral judgments about same sex marriages under the guise of protecting marriages. Both laws were lobbied and supported by communities and congressmen who traditionally regard homosexuality as immoral and a perverted behavior. Finally, let me state that this essay is not intended to make a case for the morality or immorality of homosexuality but to outline what appears to be a denial of equal protection and the constitutional rights of homosexuals as stated in Article XIV of the US Constitution. I believe that DOMA and California Proposition 8 are unconstitutional and that the SCOTUS should render a verdict as such.