Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Bernard M Levinson

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
ARTICLES TOWARD A NEW PUBLIC ACCESS DOCTRINE FOSTER CHILDREN PAYING FOR FOSTER CARE

Figure 1 ARTICLES TOWARD A NEW PUBLIC ACCESS DOCTRINE FOSTER CHILDREN PAYING FOR FOSTER CARE

Related Figures (1)

Bible citations that occur in footnotes have been set off as parentheticals to improve the clarity of the surrounding text. 2 Not all evangelicals are biblical literalists, and not all biblical literalists are evangelicals. However, the public perception of the “religious right” often leads large numbers of individuals to equate the biblical interpretive strategy of literalism with the broad theological movement of evangelicalism. The evangelical movement has a complicated history in the United States, and generalizations about the evangelical community, like most stereotypes, are sometimes misleading. See MARK NOLL, AMERICAN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY: AN INTRODUCTION (Blackwell Publishers 2000) (surveying the history of evangelicalism in the United States). 3 All citations to The Bible in this Article emplov the following convention: eee ee a ee 4 For example, advocates of so-called “creation science” usually rely on a single account of the origin of all things in Genesis 1. They ignore alternative accounts elsewhere in The Bible that offer very different conceptions of the origin of the physical universe and the emergence of life. These contrasting accounts include one immediately adjacent to the first chapter of Genesis, in which the creation of man precedes the creation of both plants and animals, and where woman is created last, separately from man (Genesis 2:4b-25). This account, which is normally viewed as significantly older than Genesis 1, would be especially hard to reconcile with any normal scientific approach. Yet a third account suggests that God had to defeat some type of mythological sea-creature, Rahab, prior to creating the world (Psalm 89:5-13). In other words, “creation science,” while purporting to be based upon The Bible, is both arbitrary and highly selective in its use of its alleged sources. It fails to take account of the multiple perspectives and intellectual complexity of the biblical text. Similarly, opponents of gay rights often refer to particular prohibitions on male homosexual activity found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as authoritative for contemporary social policy. Overlooked in the process are the challenges, both historical and hermeneutical, in seeking to apply those ancient laws to modern same-sex relationships. Little attention is paid to the question of how to define what specific activities are prohibited, why they are prohibited, to whom the given prohibitions are directed, or what other prohibitions exist. In actuality, there is every reason to believe that the prohibitions were addressed exclusively to Israelites, were intended only to be implemented in the land of Israel, and did not address oral sex, masturbation, or intracrural intercourse, let alone same-sex female activity. Finally, it is not clear why these particular prohibitions are “cherry-picked” and deemed to offer a model for social regulation, while other aspects of the same legislation—which on contextual grounds are equally prescriptive—are conveniently disregarded. At issue, for example, are the biblical dietary laws that prohibit consumption of pork or shellfish (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14:3-20), intercourse during the menses (Leviticus 18:19), the wearing of pants by
Bible citations that occur in footnotes have been set off as parentheticals to improve the clarity of the surrounding text. 2 Not all evangelicals are biblical literalists, and not all biblical literalists are evangelicals. However, the public perception of the “religious right” often leads large numbers of individuals to equate the biblical interpretive strategy of literalism with the broad theological movement of evangelicalism. The evangelical movement has a complicated history in the United States, and generalizations about the evangelical community, like most stereotypes, are sometimes misleading. See MARK NOLL, AMERICAN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY: AN INTRODUCTION (Blackwell Publishers 2000) (surveying the history of evangelicalism in the United States). 3 All citations to The Bible in this Article emplov the following convention: eee ee a ee 4 For example, advocates of so-called “creation science” usually rely on a single account of the origin of all things in Genesis 1. They ignore alternative accounts elsewhere in The Bible that offer very different conceptions of the origin of the physical universe and the emergence of life. These contrasting accounts include one immediately adjacent to the first chapter of Genesis, in which the creation of man precedes the creation of both plants and animals, and where woman is created last, separately from man (Genesis 2:4b-25). This account, which is normally viewed as significantly older than Genesis 1, would be especially hard to reconcile with any normal scientific approach. Yet a third account suggests that God had to defeat some type of mythological sea-creature, Rahab, prior to creating the world (Psalm 89:5-13). In other words, “creation science,” while purporting to be based upon The Bible, is both arbitrary and highly selective in its use of its alleged sources. It fails to take account of the multiple perspectives and intellectual complexity of the biblical text. Similarly, opponents of gay rights often refer to particular prohibitions on male homosexual activity found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as authoritative for contemporary social policy. Overlooked in the process are the challenges, both historical and hermeneutical, in seeking to apply those ancient laws to modern same-sex relationships. Little attention is paid to the question of how to define what specific activities are prohibited, why they are prohibited, to whom the given prohibitions are directed, or what other prohibitions exist. In actuality, there is every reason to believe that the prohibitions were addressed exclusively to Israelites, were intended only to be implemented in the land of Israel, and did not address oral sex, masturbation, or intracrural intercourse, let alone same-sex female activity. Finally, it is not clear why these particular prohibitions are “cherry-picked” and deemed to offer a model for social regulation, while other aspects of the same legislation—which on contextual grounds are equally prescriptive—are conveniently disregarded. At issue, for example, are the biblical dietary laws that prohibit consumption of pork or shellfish (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14:3-20), intercourse during the menses (Leviticus 18:19), the wearing of pants by
Related topics:
Comparative ReligionAmerican HistoryAncient HistoryIntellectual HistoryPolitical SociologyAmerican StudiesLawJewish LawJurisprudenceComparative Law
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved