Althouse: You know what's weird about all the pushback I'm getting on the Biblical reading I provided?

June 7, 2014

You know what's weird about all the pushback I'm getting on the Biblical reading I provided?

I didn't say anything about what it meant or how it relates to the rest of the post. I just said "And:"!

The objections you're raising came from your mind. Examine your fears and delusions.

61 comments:

Ann Althouse said...: Cue the "Oh, Ann, you are so disingenuous" comments.; 6/7/14, 3:21 PM
Anonymous said...: We infer your interpretation from the position you hold.; 6/7/14, 3:24 PM
sean said...: Gee, Prof. Althouse wrote about gay marriage, and appended a biblical quote about love, and various people commented on gay marriage, in some cases relating it to Biblical statements about love. I don't see anything weird about that.; 6/7/14, 3:26 PM
Gahrie said...: I for one want to know how many more times she plans on spiking the football?; 6/7/14, 3:45 PM
bleh said...: If I had to pick one word, I wouldn't pick disingenuous. When you are being provocative, you oftentimes include a disclaimer like this, i.e., hey I didn't say anything I just put it out there. So I would use cowardly, vague, ambiguous, trollish, etc., before I would use disingenuous.

Own your position. Argue it forcefully and clearly, and own it.; 6/7/14, 3:45 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "We infer your interpretation from the position you hold."

What you infer is in your head. Own it.; 6/7/14, 3:47 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Gee, Prof. Althouse wrote about gay marriage, and appended a biblical quote about love, and various people commented on gay marriage, in some cases relating it to Biblical statements about love. I don't see anything weird about that."

What's weird is the illusion that I have made a point of some kind. It's impressionistic art, but you have to take responsibility for what you are finding in your own head and putting in writing.

I'm calling you on that.; 6/7/14, 3:48 PM
Ann Althouse said...: I didn't say anything about what it meant or how it relates to the rest of the post. I just said "And:"!

That's utterly 100% true, and I'm challenging the people who wrote interpretations to see the extent of their own mental work.; 6/7/14, 3:51 PM
CStanley said...: I may have missed something, but the only pushback I noticed was a discussion of the concept of marital love, which seemed perfectly appropriate from the context of the post. What did you mean for the Bible quote to imply?; 6/7/14, 3:52 PM
Jim said...: This is quite the spin job.; 6/7/14, 4:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Ann Althouse wrote;

"What you infer is in your head. Own it."

Maybe. If our inference is wrong, then you could be right. But if our inference is correct, then it's an odd thing you're insisting here.; 6/7/14, 4:12 PM
sean said...: I guess everyone could read Prof. Althouse's posts, think to themselves "Hmm, interesting juxtaposition, but, since I'm not 100% sure what she means by it, I won't comment." That is my reaction to a lot of posts at this site, but there would be a whole lot fewer comments if everyone took that approach.; 6/7/14, 4:25 PM
Gahrie said...: I get it now....Althouse thinks she's the heir to Ledger's Joker........; 6/7/14, 4:26 PM
Lance said...: Ooh, nicely done. I came this close to diving head first into that other thread to see what all the consternation was about. Well played professor, well played.; 6/7/14, 4:27 PM
Chef Mojo said...: Althouse: Like the punchline of a joke, if you're having to explain it, then it's quite possible you've failed to communicate in an adequate manner.

Also, while the biblical quote may be "abstract," the rest of the post doesn't seem to be. A painting that is abstract is only abstract. I'm not aware of artists who can or are able to combine abstract and realism in the same picture. Conceptually, it flies apart and collapses, much like the referenced post.

Your response is not so much "disingenuous," as it is an unclever attempt at a parlor trick.; 6/7/14, 4:45 PM
Chef Mojo said...: Althouse: Like the punchline of a joke, if you're having to explain it, then it's quite possible you've failed to communicate in an adequate manner.

Also, while the biblical quote may be "abstract," the rest of the post doesn't seem to be. A painting that is abstract is only abstract. I'm not aware of artists who can or are able to combine abstract and realism in the same picture. Conceptually, it flies apart and collapses, much like the referenced post.

Your response is not so much "disingenuous," as it is an unclever attempt at a parlor trick.; 6/7/14, 4:46 PM
Æthelflæd said...: "What's weird is the illusion that I have made a point of some kind. It's impressionistic art, but you have to take responsibility for what you are finding in your own head and putting in writing."

Tune in next week, gentle readers, to be chided by the good professor for missing her inferences and not reading between the lines. Also, it is extremely unusual to post a Bible verse with a point in mind. Tabula rasa, people. Keep all your nasty presuppositions and experiences with humanity to yourselves.; 6/7/14, 4:47 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: I didn't think she was referring to love and marriage with the Bible quote. I thought she was referring to the way we should love one another. For example, not heaping scorn on people because we don't like a political outcome.; 6/7/14, 4:50 PM
Strick said...: "I didn't say anything about what it meant or how it relates to the rest of the post."

So the reason you didn't say what you meant is not that it was an awkwardly written post, it's that you were looking for an argument.

Quoting scripture in post on gay marriage on the internet is like waving a red flag, a darn good way to get one. Of course, this is the internet, not a class room, so it shouldn't be surprising things didn't turn out the way you expected. No one owes you the kind of discussion you wanted, not from this setup.; 6/7/14, 4:52 PM
Patrick said...: It's impressionistic art, but you have to take responsibility for what you are finding in your own head and putting in writing.

That's correct, but those findings are not created in a vacuum. The impressions may not be correct, but that mental work derives n part from other impressions, based upon other writings.

Don't mistake this as a defense of anti same sex marriage sentiment, but I reached the same apparently incorrect conclusion. It seemed an obvious one given the juxtaposition of the post on the romantic nature of the marriages with the gospel portion that deals with a different kind of love.

My mistake. I just happened to not post about it.; 6/7/14, 4:53 PM
m stone said...: You may see it as impressionistic art: appending a scripture on Godly love that many of us accept as divine, to a narrative beginning with gay marriage and wandering into eros and sentimentality.

It is an valid inference as eric notes, but more importantly, it suggests that God-initiated love equates with some soupy lyrics.

Bringing scripture into the mix in this case is simply out of place.; 6/7/14, 5:03 PM
CStanley said...: I didn't think she was referring to love and marriage with the Bible quote. I thought she was referring to the way we should love one another. For example, not heaping scorn on people because we don't like a political outcome.

If that's the case, and it may well be, then my response would be a different Bible verse about removing a plank from one' s own eye (because that principle applies equally to the practice of rubbing opponents' noses in it when one's own side has a political victory.); 6/7/14, 5:03 PM
Patrick said...: See, Freeman got it correct, I did not. One of many differences between Freeman and me.; 6/7/14, 5:16 PM
Patrick said...: The differences being positive in her favor.; 6/7/14, 5:17 PM
The Godfather said...: "You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you."; 6/7/14, 5:19 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "I didn't think she was referring to love and marriage with the Bible quote. I thought she was referring to the way we should love one another. For example, not heaping scorn on people because we don't like a political outcome."

Thanks.

You know, the post begins with my saying that I felt choked up (and I cried once I got back to the car), because of the overall atmosphere of love, not just between the couples who were marrying, but the whole community.; 6/7/14, 5:23 PM
firstHat said...: "Cue the "Oh, Ann, you are so disingenuous" comments."

Nope, I'd say she was playing at being an insufferable prig, but I love her anyway.; 6/7/14, 5:26 PM
mtrobertsattorney said...: There's an old common law rule that governs ambiguities: they are to be resolved against the drafter.; 6/7/14, 5:33 PM
Sydney said...: I would call it specious.; 6/7/14, 5:36 PM
CStanley said...: You know, the post begins with my saying that I felt choked up (and I cried once I got back to the car), because of the overall atmosphere of love, not just between the couples who were marrying, but the whole community.

That's very nice, but in the interest of spreading love, why not show some understanding for those with different views?; 6/7/14, 5:39 PM
traditionalguy said...: The Professor makes an interesting observation. It is the scripture that upset the religious defenders of marriage.

First John is the Apostle's in your face letter against false gnostic teachers using the church. Love is his commanded way to win this struggle. But when you read the 4th chapter verses before the quoted love admonition, it is all about we are of God that is greater than the spirit in them...in fact they are of anti-christ spirits. John instructs the readers to test the spirits.

Looks like some spirits got tested here.; 6/7/14, 5:39 PM
Unknown said...: Tune in next time when Althouse submits two separate statements and then chides (trolls) her commentariat for not thinking clearly enough to put the two things together and understand her argument.
Alas, we, the great unwashed, just don't get the subtly nuanced wisdom imparted here at Chez Althouse.
Really, thinking back on it, who in the world uses a bible verse to wallop people of faith (who probably don't really believe what they profess anyway) on a hot button issue that is anathema to their (so called) doctrine?
No one I know.; 6/7/14, 5:47 PM
Unknown said...: Damn Æthelflæd. I must have missed your comment before I made mine. Sorry about that.; 6/7/14, 5:51 PM
Mid-Life Lawyer said...: For many of us it is offensive when those who do not properly respect the scriptures or give them their proper authority, pull them out and use them out of context to make a political point.; 6/7/14, 5:51 PM
augustus said...: When I use a quote," Ann Althouse said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."; 6/7/14, 5:57 PM
southcentralpa said...: Thankfully, you don't make PFLAG the entire focus of your blog ...; 6/7/14, 6:02 PM
jr565 said...: What mean to write and what people read are two different things. And both meanings could be valid.; 6/7/14, 6:10 PM
Unknown said...: I'm wondering where the hidden racial angle is.; 6/7/14, 6:16 PM
CStanley said...: The objections you're raising came from your mind. Examine your fears and delusions.

A slightly more pointed critique than what I've made so far...

Your own objections to the pushback also arise from your own delusions. You are kidding yourself if you really think that your use of scripture was innocent of any malicious intent.; 6/7/14, 6:22 PM
Jason said...: You know, since you routinely lose about 30 IQ points whenever you discuss SSM (and in the last thread you appear to have lost even more than that), SSM threads probably aren't the time to try to get rhetorically cute.

Didn't work. Your position was incoherent to begin with and your defense of it reeks of bad faith.; 6/7/14, 6:37 PM
Anonymous said...: "I didn't think she was referring to love and marriage with the Bible quote."

I did.

Is it reasonable, Freeman Hunt, for some to have done so?

Or, would you side with Ann and find it "weird" that some of us inferred something else?; 6/7/14, 6:39 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "For many of us it is offensive when those who do not properly respect the scriptures or give them their proper authority…"

Are you the authority on proper authority?

Are you the authority on what I respect and the propriety of the nature of my respect?

Take responsibility for your own reactions of getting offended. I feel they have little to do with me except as an effort to control me, which I heartily rebuff.; 6/7/14, 6:49 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Did you know that I am a direct descendant of Cotton Mather?; 6/7/14, 6:49 PM
Æthelflæd said...: "Zedediah Grimm said...
Damn Æthelflæd. I must have missed your comment before I made mine. Sorry about that"

Well ZG, great minds and all that. Plus the comments get posted in batches, so it's easy to miss a comment.; 6/7/14, 7:05 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "Are you the authority on proper authority?"

Every bit as much as you.

Did you know I'm a direct descendant of Hannah Duston?
I even have a bobble-head of her. Though I find it incredible there is a Hannah Dustin bobble-head; 6/7/14, 7:07 PM
m stone said...: Mid-Life Lawyer said...

"For many of us it is offensive when those who do not properly respect the scriptures or give them their proper authority..."

Ann, you left out the important part: "pull them out and use them out of context to make a political point."; 6/7/14, 7:07 PM
Jason said...: SHE STARTED TALKIN' ABOUT LOVE! STARTED TALKIN' ABOUT SIN!!!!; 6/7/14, 7:35 PM
Æthelflæd said...: She said no huggee, no kissee, til you make me your wife.; 6/7/14, 7:53 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: "Examine your fears and delusions."

This crowd? Nah:

With that, they specifically need help,...; 6/7/14, 8:05 PM
Rusty said...: Ann Althouse said...
Did you know that I am a direct descendant of Cotton Mather?

Did you know I'm a direct descendant of I don't give a shit.

Although HE wrote an interesting treatise on fly fishing.; 6/7/14, 8:07 PM
Mid-Life Lawyer said...: Ann Althouse said...

"For many of us it is offensive when those who do not properly respect the scriptures or give them their proper authority…"

Are you the authority on proper authority?

Are you the authority on what I respect and the propriety of the nature of my respect?

Take responsibility for your own reactions of getting offended. I feel they have little to do with me except as an effort to control me, which I heartily rebuff."

I explained why you got the push back. I'm no authority but I respect and trust those who are. I have read your site for several years, commenting occasionally, and I feel pretty confident that you don't take much stock in the whole Christianity thing. At least not the more "controversial" parts, for instance the unequivocal Christian view on homosexuality. Which is fine, until you try and use scripture in a devious way. Still, I saw your earlier comment and had no compulsion to challenge your ignorance. Apparently others did.

The Lady doth protest too much, methinks, but I can stand it if she can. I'm kind of like the Christian guy on Seinfeld, I'm really not too concerned about your religious views. You can work that out, or not.; 6/7/14, 8:20 PM
wildswan said...: I, of course, am always right about everything but I've noticed that the people around me, even those I respect, are not quite so perfect.

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change."; 6/7/14, 9:18 PM
Gahrie said...: For example, not heaping scorn on people because we don't like a political outcome."

Have you been paying attention? Althouse has been heaping scorn on people because she likes a judicial outcome for many months now.; 6/7/14, 9:28 PM
The Godfather said...: I didn't push back on your post of today, and yesterday I criticized only your response to a good faith critique of your poorly written post.

As it happens, I agree with you on Gay marriage. I don't think that my position is at all inconsistent with my Christian faith. Other Christians feel differently. I get the feeling that some Christian commenters don't think your citations of scripture are sincere. They think you're being a smart ass. It doesn't really bother me: You're a law prof, and my experience leads me to conclude that all law profs are smart asses.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.; 6/7/14, 9:41 PM
traditionalguy said...: John the Apostle was authority with a capital A, He was one of the fishermen brothers picked to leave their boat and fish for men by the Son of God He was in the mount of transfiguration inner circle. He reclined on Jesus' bosom at the last supper. Jesus appointed Mother Mary into his hands to be cared for as John's mother from the cross in the last hour of the Passion of Christ. besides a Gospel and three Epistles he wrote down the risen Christ's final revelation to close the canon scripture.

What John would not agree to was Greek gnostic thoughts hijacking his Jesus and saying his friend Jesus was a spirit and not a real man. John was there and knew real love from a real man who came with real blood to be sprinkled to show The Father's love.

So John is a standard of truth, but his scripture was what upset the traditions of religious men by being quoted without comment other than that they are the truth.; 6/7/14, 9:42 PM
somefeller said...: Examine your fears and delusions.

That's a harsh suggestion. Fears and delusions are pretty much all that modern social conservatives have to rely on. Asking them to examine that is almost cruel.; 6/7/14, 11:17 PM
Anonymous said...: A post that illustrates why laws and Bible passages are interpreted differently by different people.

Contextually, the conjunction "and" would suggest to the reader that what follows is in support of what went before.

In the context of your post, I think it serves as provocation, to which you got a lot of people to take the bait.; 6/7/14, 11:55 PM
BrianE said...: I highly recommend this book on the subject of love and marriage.

http://www.amazon.com/Love-Life-Every-Married-Couple/dp/0310214866/ref=pd_cp_b_0

And if you buy it through Althouse, Ms. Althouse even receives a few farthings!

Regarding my quote that love is not a feeling, but an act of the will, I have observed that love as popularly used is full of wind and fury, signifying nothing.

We can have all sorts of warm, fuzzy feelings regarding someone and as wonderfully warm and fuzzy that makes us feel, that is not love. Love requires action.

And yes, I do think divorce would be affected if the principle were practiced.; 6/8/14, 12:40 AM
Jon Burack said...: Interesting how desperate so many here are to respond to this Bible quote THROUGH their responses to what they see as Ann Althouse's point about the quote. I take part in comments sections all the time, but it is clear to me they are a very strange setting, and this little battle is a good example of why.

As to Mid-Life Lawyer who is "offended" by people pulling Bible quotes out and not giving them the take approved by "proper authority," I think Martin Luther let that cat out of the bag a long time ago. Or maybe it was the printing press. The proper authority long ago went up in a puff of smoke.

Anyway, I like the quote and see its point in the context of the gay marriage episode fine. "All you need is love," as one group of proper authorities once put it.; 6/8/14, 6:58 AM
Rusty said...: somefeller said...
Examine your fears and delusions.

That's a harsh suggestion. Fears and delusions are pretty much all that modern social conservatives have to rely on. Asking them to examine that is almost cruel.

Irony like a fuckin rocket ship.; 6/8/14, 10:49 AM
Rusty said...: somefeller said...
Examine your fears and delusions.

That's a harsh suggestion. Fears and delusions are pretty much all that modern social conservatives have to rely on. Asking them to examine that is almost cruel.

Irony like a fuckin rocket ship.; 6/8/14, 10:57 AM