Once again the issue of Gay Rights has become a topic of conversation but not much is said about what those specific rights are. Those supporting them maintain that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals – not an unreasonable position one would think. But those opposing the position of Gay Rights feel that the hidden agenda is to force the acceptance of homosexuality as “normal”. The definition of normal is “the usual condition, level, or quantity” and the essential position of those opposing Gay Rights is that homosexuality is “abnormal” but I don’t think this position holds up under scrutiny. Then there are those who oppose homosexuality because it is expressly forbidden in both the Bible and Koran and thus not within God’s Law.
On the secular side we have the Darwinists who maintain that man is descended from a common ancestor with the ape and thus nothing more than an intelligent animal, but an animal nonetheless. An observation of the animal kingdom shows that homosexuality is present in animals. Admittedly it is not widespread but it is present and thus it can be considered normal in the sense that a certain percentage of animals are homosexual. Given that man is an animal then homosexuality is a normal condition for a certain percentage of the population but what the evolutionary purpose is remains a mystery. The argument seems to be that homosexuality cannot be normal because if it were the species would die out, but of course this hasn’t happened so there must be some other unknown purpose. However, the fact is that homosexuality is found in animals as well as in man and that it has always been thus and will probably continue to be so and therefore, this is a normal condition relative to the species.
But then there are those who maintain that man is not descended from the apes but is a direct creation of God and the Creator has expressly forbidden any deviant sexual practices including homosexuality. Of course what is not explored in any detail among all of this rhetoric is all of those deviant practices, which include masturbation. So the argument seems to rest not on the practices forbidden by God other than homosexuality. However, if God made us all and he made us in different colors and different sexes then He also made homosexuals. If all of God’s creations are perfect – in the sense that He made them – then homosexuals are normal, are made by God, and His purpose is unknown. Perhaps God made homosexuals as a test in tolerance and forgiveness for those who are now persecuting them. Whatever, His reason, there is no doubt but that homosexuals are normal in the sense they have always been a percentage of the population both in man and in the animal world.
But the Bible (and Koran) is God’s word and they specifically forbid homosexuality. Of course neither of these holy books was written by God even though they are published as the word of God. Both books were written by men long after the events described in them and rarely – if ever – written by anyone who had a direct contact with God. Therefore, whether or not God has forbidden these sexual practices or even the dietary restrictions included in these holy books can only be described as arguable. And this brings us to the issue of Gay Rights – precisely what rights are we talking about?
When all of the sound and fury is ignored it seems that we are really only talking about two “rights” and those are the right to marry and the right to serve in the military, all other rights seem to spring from these two. The right to marry seems to be covered under the Constitutional guarantee for equal rights under the law. Now it can be argued that “marriage” is a sacred institution and thus protected under the Freedom of Religion guarantee so in effect we are only talking about semantics. It seems the state cannot deny the right to marry or to issue a marriage license due to equal protection so in effect all that needs to be done is to define a Secular Marriage – in effect a civil union and a Sacred Marriage – one conducted in a religious ceremony. This seems like a simple solution and to deny same sex unions seems to violate the Constitution.
The issue of Gays in the military is a much thornier one. The reality is that Gays are already in the military and have always been in the military. In fact the Macedonian Army under Phillip II had a “Sacred Band” of 300 soldiers composed entirely of homosexuals and this elite unit was the equivalent of Phillip’s Special Forces who were deployed in front of the Phalanx and acted as the shock troops. This is one historical example but homosexuals have been in every army since there was an army – including the American Army. If you accept the common estimate that 7% of the male population is homosexual and another 15% are bisexual then an estimate of 20% of all males have homosexual tendencies seems logical. A military division consists of between 10,000 and 15,000 men so this would indicate that at this very moment there are between 2000 and 3000 homosexuals on active duty in every Army Division. And this does not seem to be a problem with discipline or morale.
But there is an even greater issue here and that is the equal rights issue. Heterosexual soldiers are allowed into the military so to deny homosexuals into the military seems to be a clear case of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The counter argument seems to be that Gays can serve as long as they remain celibate but this restriction isn’t placed on heterosexual soldiers so this also appears to be a clear case of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Clearly the rules should apply equally and they do not, instead the homosexuals are being discriminated against solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. If they were applying for a job or membership in a club, they could not be denied and the state would support their claim of discrimination so the government’s position relative to the military is hypocritical at best and outright discrimination at its worst. The policy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is totally ridiculous and this restriction on homosexuals should be lifted because it is clearly unconstitutional.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III
History is fascinating for so many reasons, but perhaps one of the most interesting one is how the facts are interpreted. In fact, history is littered with facts but most of these are really not connected anywhere or if they are the connections are really nothing more than assumptions. It is as if history is a giant jigsaw puzzle whose pieces are mostly there but how they fit together isn’t always clear. One of these puzzles is the story of Thutmosis I, his son Thutmosis II, his daughter Hatshepsut, and his grandson Thutmosis III. As if the relationships of these were not enough there is the Grand Vizier (?) Senemut, who was certainly influential but what his actual role was remains rather vague. Various historians have interpreted the facts in various ways, but no one really knows for sure who did what to whom or why, but first the facts.
The sons of Thutmosis I all died in their youth leaving only his daughter as the true heir to the throne. He did have another son by a secondary wife. This half brother to Hatshepsut married her and they had a daughter -- Neferure. The age of Thutmosis II at his accession is not known but it is believed that he was younger than Hatshepsut. The actual duration of his reign is in debate but newer evidence suggests a 3 to 4 year reign rather than the 13 year reign previously believed. Whatever the duration of his reign was, it was uneventful and the few campaigns in Nubia were conducted by his generals and not by Thutmosis himself.
Hatshepsut did marry her half brother but considered herself the actual heir to her father Thutmosis I and not his illegitimate son Thutmosis II. Thutmosis II did father a child by a lesser wife but precisely when this child was born is unclear but he did reign as Pharaoh for 54 years so clearly he was very young when his father died and he succeeded to the throne. He was 30 years old when he became sole Pharaoh and Hatshepsut reigned for 22 years so Thutmosis III was probably around 8 when he was crowned. His step-mother Hatshepsut ruled with him as co-regent for a short period and then had herself crowned Pharaoh. Sometime after his accession as sole ruler efforts were made to obliterate references to Hatshepsut. These are the basic facts but the controversy rages around how to interpret them and based on my readings of various interpretations, this is what I think actually happened.
Senemut was a commoner and very influential with Hatshepsut, but given her attitude about the royal bloodline it is very unlikely that he was a lover or anything other than a favored advisor. While Senemut was very influential he suddenly drops out of the picture and disappears, but he falls from favor after visiting Thutmosis III, so the probability is that he said something that offended Thutmosis III – perhaps advocating the overthrow of his step mother. Whatever happened between them is unknown but it was shortly after this visit to Thutmosis in Upper Egypt that he vanishes.
Then we have Thutmosis II, the husband of Hatshepsut, whose reign – long or short – was not very noteworthy. His campaigns were generally conducted by his generals and he was only present on rare occasions. From what we do know, Hatshepsut considered herself the rightful heir and her husband as little more than an annoyance, but it seems quite logical that she was the real power. Furthermore, it is known that Thutmosis II suffered from some severe skin ailment that left him badly scarred. Plus his mummy indicates that he was not in robust health so this is another reason to suspect that Thutmosis II was not very active as Pharaoh and may have been little more that a figure head.
Of course the real mystery is what was the relationship between Hatshepsut and her step son or put another way, how did a man as strong as Thutmosis III allow his step-mother to reign as Pharaoh once he reached maturity. Of course no one knows the real answer but it is known that Hatshepsut raised Thutmosis as her own son and so she undoubtedly had an emotional connection prior to the death of her husband. Given that Hatshepsut was the mother to Thutmosis III then based on what we know of people in general, the boy undoubtedly had a strong emotional tie to his mother – the Queen. If Thutmosis III was crowned at the age of nine and his mother acted as co-regent for two years, then it seems rather obvious that that was a clumsy arrangement. The logical solution was to assume total control as Pharaoh, but it should be noted that Thutmosis III was not deposed, disgraced, or exiled, he simply disappears for a time. During the reign of his mother Thutmosis was being trained as a soldier and he took part in various raids and skirmishes in Nubia. By the time he reached maturity Egypt he was a trained soldier living with his troops. His relationship with his step mother was clearly a solid one and Egypt prospered under her guidance. It seems obvious that as a crowned Pharaoh, in command of a formidable army, he could have seized power from his step mother at any time, but did not. The logical conclusion is that he was satisfied with the way things were. He liked being a soldier and he did not want to be burdened with the administration of the country.
Then the question becomes, why did he attempt to eradicate all references to his mother once he became Pharaoh? Well the fact is that not all references to Hatshepsut were erased and that his efforts to eradicate these references occurred later and was at best half hearted. The logical conclusion seems to be that these were driven by political necessity. He needed to make sure that all of the victories and positive events were attributed to him, because he did claim the 22 years of his mother’s reign as his own, so the high points of her regency would have to have been revised so history would recognize these as his.
Whatever, the real facts are, it seems clear that the relationship between Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III was a positive one that reflected their relationship as mother and son. Furthermore, he reigned for 54 years which included the 22 years he was co-ruler with his mother. Had their relationship been anything but positive one of them would have disposed of the other, instead they ruled in harmony until her death.
The sons of Thutmosis I all died in their youth leaving only his daughter as the true heir to the throne. He did have another son by a secondary wife. This half brother to Hatshepsut married her and they had a daughter -- Neferure. The age of Thutmosis II at his accession is not known but it is believed that he was younger than Hatshepsut. The actual duration of his reign is in debate but newer evidence suggests a 3 to 4 year reign rather than the 13 year reign previously believed. Whatever the duration of his reign was, it was uneventful and the few campaigns in Nubia were conducted by his generals and not by Thutmosis himself.
Hatshepsut did marry her half brother but considered herself the actual heir to her father Thutmosis I and not his illegitimate son Thutmosis II. Thutmosis II did father a child by a lesser wife but precisely when this child was born is unclear but he did reign as Pharaoh for 54 years so clearly he was very young when his father died and he succeeded to the throne. He was 30 years old when he became sole Pharaoh and Hatshepsut reigned for 22 years so Thutmosis III was probably around 8 when he was crowned. His step-mother Hatshepsut ruled with him as co-regent for a short period and then had herself crowned Pharaoh. Sometime after his accession as sole ruler efforts were made to obliterate references to Hatshepsut. These are the basic facts but the controversy rages around how to interpret them and based on my readings of various interpretations, this is what I think actually happened.
Senemut was a commoner and very influential with Hatshepsut, but given her attitude about the royal bloodline it is very unlikely that he was a lover or anything other than a favored advisor. While Senemut was very influential he suddenly drops out of the picture and disappears, but he falls from favor after visiting Thutmosis III, so the probability is that he said something that offended Thutmosis III – perhaps advocating the overthrow of his step mother. Whatever happened between them is unknown but it was shortly after this visit to Thutmosis in Upper Egypt that he vanishes.
Then we have Thutmosis II, the husband of Hatshepsut, whose reign – long or short – was not very noteworthy. His campaigns were generally conducted by his generals and he was only present on rare occasions. From what we do know, Hatshepsut considered herself the rightful heir and her husband as little more than an annoyance, but it seems quite logical that she was the real power. Furthermore, it is known that Thutmosis II suffered from some severe skin ailment that left him badly scarred. Plus his mummy indicates that he was not in robust health so this is another reason to suspect that Thutmosis II was not very active as Pharaoh and may have been little more that a figure head.
Of course the real mystery is what was the relationship between Hatshepsut and her step son or put another way, how did a man as strong as Thutmosis III allow his step-mother to reign as Pharaoh once he reached maturity. Of course no one knows the real answer but it is known that Hatshepsut raised Thutmosis as her own son and so she undoubtedly had an emotional connection prior to the death of her husband. Given that Hatshepsut was the mother to Thutmosis III then based on what we know of people in general, the boy undoubtedly had a strong emotional tie to his mother – the Queen. If Thutmosis III was crowned at the age of nine and his mother acted as co-regent for two years, then it seems rather obvious that that was a clumsy arrangement. The logical solution was to assume total control as Pharaoh, but it should be noted that Thutmosis III was not deposed, disgraced, or exiled, he simply disappears for a time. During the reign of his mother Thutmosis was being trained as a soldier and he took part in various raids and skirmishes in Nubia. By the time he reached maturity Egypt he was a trained soldier living with his troops. His relationship with his step mother was clearly a solid one and Egypt prospered under her guidance. It seems obvious that as a crowned Pharaoh, in command of a formidable army, he could have seized power from his step mother at any time, but did not. The logical conclusion is that he was satisfied with the way things were. He liked being a soldier and he did not want to be burdened with the administration of the country.
Then the question becomes, why did he attempt to eradicate all references to his mother once he became Pharaoh? Well the fact is that not all references to Hatshepsut were erased and that his efforts to eradicate these references occurred later and was at best half hearted. The logical conclusion seems to be that these were driven by political necessity. He needed to make sure that all of the victories and positive events were attributed to him, because he did claim the 22 years of his mother’s reign as his own, so the high points of her regency would have to have been revised so history would recognize these as his.
Whatever, the real facts are, it seems clear that the relationship between Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III was a positive one that reflected their relationship as mother and son. Furthermore, he reigned for 54 years which included the 22 years he was co-ruler with his mother. Had their relationship been anything but positive one of them would have disposed of the other, instead they ruled in harmony until her death.
Friday, April 04, 2008
War And The Futility Of Peace Protests
Once again the voices of the morally superior are raised against the military, against war, and in favor of world peace. These well meaning souls don’t seem to have a clue about war, the meaning of war, the impact of stopping a war, the strategic impact of one-sided peace initiatives, or anything beyond their conviction that the world would be peaceful if people just stopped fighting. These are the people who think war is immoral and unnatural because inter-species fighting is immoral. Of course one only has to look at the animal kingdom to determine that inter-species killing and fighting is very prevalent. In virtually every animal species the males fight over females, territory, and resources. In some cases whole packs of animals attack and kill similar packs over territory and resources. Chimpanzees in particular organize war parties and conduct what have all of the earmarks of raids on neighboring groups where killing is the objective. The obvious conclusion is that inter-species killing is commonplace in the animal kingdom but is not viewed as being immoral but simply as the way things are.
The Darwinists believe that man is descended from a common ancestor with apes and is simply another animal. To the Darwinists man is born, reproduces, and dies just like other animals. Man has no purpose, no objective beyond reproduction, and lives a life of futility, but as usual the Darwinists want to have it both ways. On the one hand they know we are just another member of the animal kingdom but being a superior animal we have a concept of morality and of right and wrong whereas animals do not. But if we are an animal like the apes, then why are our wars considered immoral by these people? Clearly the answer must be because we have some inner voice, a consciousness that tells us what is right and wrong. This of course sounds a great deal like a soul, but I digress.
The reality is that World Peace is a dream, much like the Alchemist’s dream of changing base metal into gold. There has never been a time in human history, going back to the Neolithic when man was not engaged in some form of combat. The idea that primitive man lived a life in harmony with nature and at peace with others is simply a dream that these peace advocates have created for themselves but that is all it is – a dream. One only has to look at primitive societies today to see that they engage in warfare that frequently results in fatalities. So the idea that man is by nature peaceful is simply erroneous and those people who mount these peace rallies whose aim is world peace are really indulging in an exercise in futility.
But suppose that these people who are anti-war and anti-military were to gain enough political power that they could put their philosophy of pacifism into practice? Well the history books are filled with examples where various kings and countries have tried to buy off aggressive threats, but it never works – it only delays the inevitable and those that tried to pay tribute always come out the loser. Machiavelli points out that wars cannot be avoided – only delayed. We have examples in our own time. The League of Nations was created as a way of avoiding war, of creating a forum where issues could be talked about and resolved without violence. Well the League did not prevent Mussolini from invading Ethiopia nor did it keep Hitler from invading Austria. The “peace at any price” lobby got control of the British government led by Neville Chamberlain who was so determined to avoid war that he almost singlehandedly brought on the second World War. The United Nations was created for the express purpose of providing a forum for the resolution of conflicts without violence. It was supposed to prevent wars. It has failed and failed miserably. It has not prevented any war, stopped any war, or even come close – it has turned into an ineffectual debating society.
The fact is that war seems to be the natural state of man, but not all men and not all the time. In reality – even in ancient times – only a small portion of the population is engaged in warfare, the majority of the population is law abiding citizens going about their daily lives. Of course these are also those people who are carried off in to slavery, slaughtered by score, and find themselves exploited by the conquerors or even by their own military dictators. So it is only this small portion of the general population – the warrior class – who fight the battles that determine the fate of people, states, nations, or empires. In fact the future of these and the fate of peoples has commonly hinged on one battle, fought by a relatively small number of men, in a small area over a period of hours. These are the battles that yield not just a new order of things but may determine the future of whole civilizations.
It was the battle of Thermopylae that allowed the Athenian city states to organize and fight off the Persians. It was the battle of Waterloo that brought down Napoleon. It was the battle of Hastings that ended the reign of Harold and the Anglo-Saxons and the list goes on and on. Therefore, while the majority of the population may not want war and may not actually fight in a war, their future has always been in the hands of a few warriors. While those who seek peace and protest war may be well intentioned the fact is that war has always existed and it is the warrior who creates and maintains the peace. A nation at peace cannot remain at peace without a strong military defense and any country that disarms is ultimately doomed to destruction and enslavement.
The Darwinists believe that man is descended from a common ancestor with apes and is simply another animal. To the Darwinists man is born, reproduces, and dies just like other animals. Man has no purpose, no objective beyond reproduction, and lives a life of futility, but as usual the Darwinists want to have it both ways. On the one hand they know we are just another member of the animal kingdom but being a superior animal we have a concept of morality and of right and wrong whereas animals do not. But if we are an animal like the apes, then why are our wars considered immoral by these people? Clearly the answer must be because we have some inner voice, a consciousness that tells us what is right and wrong. This of course sounds a great deal like a soul, but I digress.
The reality is that World Peace is a dream, much like the Alchemist’s dream of changing base metal into gold. There has never been a time in human history, going back to the Neolithic when man was not engaged in some form of combat. The idea that primitive man lived a life in harmony with nature and at peace with others is simply a dream that these peace advocates have created for themselves but that is all it is – a dream. One only has to look at primitive societies today to see that they engage in warfare that frequently results in fatalities. So the idea that man is by nature peaceful is simply erroneous and those people who mount these peace rallies whose aim is world peace are really indulging in an exercise in futility.
But suppose that these people who are anti-war and anti-military were to gain enough political power that they could put their philosophy of pacifism into practice? Well the history books are filled with examples where various kings and countries have tried to buy off aggressive threats, but it never works – it only delays the inevitable and those that tried to pay tribute always come out the loser. Machiavelli points out that wars cannot be avoided – only delayed. We have examples in our own time. The League of Nations was created as a way of avoiding war, of creating a forum where issues could be talked about and resolved without violence. Well the League did not prevent Mussolini from invading Ethiopia nor did it keep Hitler from invading Austria. The “peace at any price” lobby got control of the British government led by Neville Chamberlain who was so determined to avoid war that he almost singlehandedly brought on the second World War. The United Nations was created for the express purpose of providing a forum for the resolution of conflicts without violence. It was supposed to prevent wars. It has failed and failed miserably. It has not prevented any war, stopped any war, or even come close – it has turned into an ineffectual debating society.
The fact is that war seems to be the natural state of man, but not all men and not all the time. In reality – even in ancient times – only a small portion of the population is engaged in warfare, the majority of the population is law abiding citizens going about their daily lives. Of course these are also those people who are carried off in to slavery, slaughtered by score, and find themselves exploited by the conquerors or even by their own military dictators. So it is only this small portion of the general population – the warrior class – who fight the battles that determine the fate of people, states, nations, or empires. In fact the future of these and the fate of peoples has commonly hinged on one battle, fought by a relatively small number of men, in a small area over a period of hours. These are the battles that yield not just a new order of things but may determine the future of whole civilizations.
It was the battle of Thermopylae that allowed the Athenian city states to organize and fight off the Persians. It was the battle of Waterloo that brought down Napoleon. It was the battle of Hastings that ended the reign of Harold and the Anglo-Saxons and the list goes on and on. Therefore, while the majority of the population may not want war and may not actually fight in a war, their future has always been in the hands of a few warriors. While those who seek peace and protest war may be well intentioned the fact is that war has always existed and it is the warrior who creates and maintains the peace. A nation at peace cannot remain at peace without a strong military defense and any country that disarms is ultimately doomed to destruction and enslavement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)