griner, whelan... and the Merchant of Death

[kaysixteen]

I suppose I could disengage from this, but I did start it.

1) Viktor Bout was in no sense of the term a 'low-value prisoner'-- are you nuts?   Do you have rocks in your brain?   He is a scumbag of the first order, and has the blood of thousands on his hands.   Every day that he will not be incarcerated is a day that he can also continue his activities, safe in Putin's protection whilst drinking vodka at a Black Sea dacha, or something like this.  Now tell me how it would be that you could explain to the families of some hapless Third World victims of revolutionaries, terrorists, or the like, to whom Bout sells weapons next year, when said bad guys use said weapons to blow up innocents?   'we're sorry, but we really had to get this druggie ballplayer out', really just won't cut it.
2) There is no question of Griner's guilt as to the possession charge.   Whether she was planning on selling any of this, is much less probable, but she was in no sense 'set up' (even the US govt does not claim that, and she herself acknowledged her guilt on that possession charge.   She sortta just fell into Putin's lap, and he ran with it.   But as has been pointed out regularly here already, she well knew 1) what she was doing, and 2) it was wholly illegal in Russia, and 3) she could expect bad consequences for doing it.   She may or may not have planned on trying to cash in on her wealth, fame, and yes, sexual orientation (I have read and heard many commentators essentially say that we had a moral obligation to spring her, precisely because of how gays are treated in Russia), but she and especially her American cheerleaders certainly tried hard, with great success, to do exactly this (how many Americans, guilty of various drug offenses abroad, and subject to draconian punishments in hideous conditions, receive such assistance from Uncle Sam's government?)
3) Ok, we can agree not to use the term 'Rooskie' here, but it is also true that no one has used any anti-homosexual slur words here.
4) There is no question that I hate drugs, and have been developing, largely because of recent experiences in my current job and home city situations, an ever increasing antipathy to users as well, especially those whose behavior affects children and spouses.  And it is true, like it or not, that my own father was a violent drunk who beat the crap out of my mother and sent her to the hospital on several occasions, before she had the courage, quite rare in 1968, to depart, fearing for what he'd do to me as I aged, and even mom herself developed a pretty palpable drinking problem in her later years.
5) The Prince of Peace who is actually depicted in the Bible is not the same as the Hallmark Channel version.   He actually disapproves of not only homosexuality, but a number of other things, calling them sins, that are also popular pastimes in modern society, and sends those guilty of those things, who do not repent thereof, to Hell.
6)The WNBA is essentially a publicity stunt.  It is well over twenty years old, and it has *never made money*. How much more money, therefore, should the NBA owners be willing to lose, in order to pay the athletes more money?

[Wahoo Redux]

The Prince of Peace who is actually depicted in the Bible is not the same as the Hallmark Channel version.   He actually disapproves of not only homosexuality, but a number of other things, calling them sins, that are also popular pastimes in modern society, and sends those guilty of those things, who do not repent thereof, to Hell.

Probably shouldn't call him "The Prince of Peace," huh?  I didn't make that up, someone else did.  I guess they read a different Bible than the one you refer to.

[Hegemony]

So Jesus would have approved of sentencing a lesbian to 9 years of 16-hour days of hard labor? Wait, was that the Jesus who was condemned for hanging out with thieves and prostitutes? Must be some other guy, the one who fulminated against drugs, I guess. The Jesus I read about didn't say anything about drugs, but I guess we might as well say "If I don't like something, Jesus wouldn't have liked it either" — we make God in our image quite frequently.

I think one of those Jesuses also said something like, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "Judge not, lest ye be judged." So easy to forget those ones, or to work one's way around where it doesn't apply to us, or not this time, or not for this reason.

[marshwiggle]

Yes I have to agree with Marsh and Dismalist on this one. NBA players make a ton of money because their labor brings in a ton of revenue. WNBA players, not so much. I also do not agree that WNBA players are better athletes in their game than NBA players, but that's more subjective.

As far as I know, there aren't many other professional womens' basketball leagues in the world, whereas a quick google search brings up several mens' leagues in different countries. Thus, at the highest levels of competition, basketball, (like many sports), has a global talent pool for men, while mainly a national one for women, since very few countries have women playing at the professional level. Given that, it's hard to make the argument that women are "better athletes at the game". It would be almost Orwellian to claim that the lack of competition ensures the highest level of performance. (Note that this is without even discussing how womens' performance compares to mens'.)

[pgher]

The Prince of Peace who is actually depicted in the Bible is not the same as the Hallmark Channel version.   He actually disapproves of not only homosexuality, but a number of other things, calling them sins, that are also popular pastimes in modern society, and sends those guilty of those things, who do not repent thereof, to Hell.

Probably shouldn't call him "The Prince of Peace," huh?  I didn't make that up, someone else did.  I guess they read a different Bible than the one you refer to.

This thread is an excellent example of why salvation theology matters. K16 represents the stream of Christian thought that dominates the public narrative. I am writing not to change his mind, but to represent my own stream, progressive Christianity.

The dominant Christian narrative focuses on individual salvation. The goal is to get yourself to heaven, through some combination of faith and prayer and personal piety. I believe instead in universal salvation. I believe that we are all destined for heaven, so the goal must be something else entirely.

That "something else" is love, reconciliation, and the transformation of the world. It is not my place to judge Griner's sins. I support the effort to reunite her with the people she loves, particularly the woman she has chosen to spend her life with. If in the process we shine a light on injustice in Russia, and elsewhere around the world, so much the better.

If you are interested in Biblical support for what I believe, I would recommend That All Shall Be Saved by David Bentley Hart, among many other resources. The Bible is a thick book that has support for three different views: universalism, infernalism (some are bound for eternal conscious torment), and annihilationism (for some, death is the end; the rest are raised to glory). The one you choose determines in part how you treat others and how you respond to complex situations like this one.

[marshwiggle]

This thread is an excellent example of why salvation theology matters. K16 represents the stream of Christian thought that dominates the public narrative. I am writing not to change his mind, but to represent my own stream, progressive Christianity.

The problem with the term "progressive", in politics, religion, or anything else, is that it exhibits the conceit that "progress" is absolutely identifiable, and that hindsight will never show this generation's idea of "progress" to have been a grave error. Pretty much any historical choice that we now lament was thought by people at the time to represent progress.

I have no idea what my grandchildren will see as "progress" when they are my age; all I can do is try and cultivate humility in myself and realize that my best ideas might be ones which I myself would regret later, and so I should always at least listen to views that disagree with me to consider if there might be some insights that I have missed.

[apl68]

The Prince of Peace who is actually depicted in the Bible is not the same as the Hallmark Channel version.   He actually disapproves of not only homosexuality, but a number of other things, calling them sins, that are also popular pastimes in modern society, and sends those guilty of those things, who do not repent thereof, to Hell.

Probably shouldn't call him "The Prince of Peace," huh?  I didn't make that up, someone else did.  I guess they read a different Bible than the one you refer to.

This thread is an excellent example of why salvation theology matters. K16 represents the stream of Christian thought that dominates the public narrative. I am writing not to change his mind, but to represent my own stream, progressive Christianity.

The dominant Christian narrative focuses on individual salvation. The goal is to get yourself to heaven, through some combination of faith and prayer and personal piety. I believe instead in universal salvation. I believe that we are all destined for heaven, so the goal must be something else entirely.

That "something else" is love, reconciliation, and the transformation of the world. It is not my place to judge Griner's sins. I support the effort to reunite her with the people she loves, particularly the woman she has chosen to spend her life with. If in the process we shine a light on injustice in Russia, and elsewhere around the world, so much the better.

If you are interested in Biblical support for what I believe, I would recommend That All Shall Be Saved by David Bentley Hart, among many other resources. The Bible is a thick book that has support for three different views: universalism, infernalism (some are bound for eternal conscious torment), and annihilationism (for some, death is the end; the rest are raised to glory). The one you choose determines in part how you treat others and how you respond to complex situations like this one.

You're setting up a false dichotomy here.  You're implying that it is not possible to believe that Hell and divine punishment are real (And let's face it, the New Testament has a lot to say about it, and that includes a number of mentions in Jesus' own teachings) and also teach the Jesus of compassion.  And that is simply not so. 

If universalism is true, and all are going to be okay in eternity regardless of how we live their lives or whether we reject God and God's commands, then essentially how we live our lives does not ultimately matter.  If Jesus wasn't kidding about the final judgement, then what we believe and how we live matter very much, with consequences that go far beyond this immediate life.  Which is why those of us to do believe in a final judgement are so insistent that people need to follow Jesus and live the way God's Word says.  If they don't, the consequences will be terrible, and we have to warn them about that.  It would be a terrible failure of compassion not to warn them.  Or to engage in the sort of sophistry that causes the New Testament to say exactly the opposite of what it plainly does, for the sake of making the "Christian" message more palatable.

The Christian message is not palatable or easy!  It tells us that we've all messed up.  We're all sinners, justly condemned by God, regardless of how good we want to think we've been.  It is God's say on this that matters, and not our human desires for a world where we're free to do whatever we want and have everything turn out just right for us.  Many down through the ages have professed Christian belief, and practiced some form or another of Christian religion, and been part of some sort of Christian institution.  But following the teachings of Jesus--Christianity in its fullest sense--is not about professing a belief, or practicing a religion, or being loyal to an institution.  It's about a revolutionary, life-changing commitment. 

[apl68]

Cont'd (with apologies for length):


New Testament Christianity in any age is always countercultural.  New Testament Christians are always going to be out of step with the broader society in some respect. In its earliest days it meant showing compassion in a world where there was very little of that.  In the Middle Ages it meant pursuing peace in a society of warrior nobles who convinced themselves that even wars could be "holy."  Later it meant opposing slavery when society was by and large okay with that.  And today it might mean insisting that modern society's wide-open acceptance of recreational drug use and all manner of sexual practices is not right.

But it also means not writing people who disagree with us off.  I go to a Baptist church that is very theologically and socially "conservative."  Yet my fellow church members include former atheists, former adulterers and adulteresses, former jail birds, former drunkards and drug addicts.  It includes good 'ole boys who now worship side-by-side with black people, including a racially mixed couple and their mixed children who recently joined.  It includes people who who have taken needy strangers into their own homes, because that's what Jesus said to do.  I know of a guy on a modest salary who saves up all year long so that each December he can drop several grand on anonymously helping 30 needy local families (There's a network of us that he trusts who recommend people for this project every year).  I see among these people a level of love and compassion and acceptance such as I've never seen anywhere else--but they are not going to tell people that sex outside of a heterosexual marriage is a good thing, or that recreational drug use is no big deal. 

After our nation's latest horrifying mass shooting took place in a gay nightclub, the New York Times had a steady stream of editorials demonizing evangelical Christians for not accepting LBG etc. etc. people.  Said we'd as good as pulled the trigger ourselves.  Then it turned out that the shooter was a trans member of the victimized community, and suddenly the crime all but disappeared from the news.  What a rush to judgement!  I don't recognize this caricature that dominates the editorial pages and letter columns in the loving fellowship of Christian believers that I know.  As I said on the "Cancelling Dr. Seuss" thread, if we have to suffer opprobrium because we haven't pivoted on some issues the way mainstream society has, then so be it.  Jesus said that those who have evil said about them falsely for his Name's sake are blessed, so I guess we're about to be blessed a lot more.

And by the way, I'm glad that Pan Griner is safely home.  I hope that maybe she'll have cause to reconsider some things, now that she has a second chance.

[jimbogumbo]

I (a committed Christian who will not belong to any church will believes you can't go up yonder if you aren't one of them, or take communion if you hold even slightly different beliefs) do believe in Venn diagrams. Consider the set of bigots and the set of Christians (yes, there are an infinite number of sets, but let's focus on these). In the intersection sits bigots who are Christians. If you pick the verses on unrepentant homosexuals as going to Hell, but you yourself engage in any of the proscribed activities in Leviticus as "not a big deal", then you reside in the intersection of my Venn.

[jimbogumbo]

Note: my previous post was written prior to apl's posts. They crossed.

[jimbogumbo]

And one more. These are not my words, but I think they capture the essence of the alleged "inequity" of the trade.

"The nitwits who are going on about "we traded a supervillain for a basketball player" really make me roll my eyes. Whom did they think we were going to trade? Mary Poppins? Tinkerbell?

The reason we can't make a "like for like" trade for someone like Griner is because this government is not (usually) in the business of imprisoning foreign visitors on ridiculously exaggerated if not totally bogus charges. Do they think we're going to, say, frame Artemi Panerin and trade him for Griner? When all you lock up from the other side are actual criminals, that's whom you have to trade."

[marshwiggle]

New Testament Christianity in any age is always countercultural.  New Testament Christians are always going to be out of step with the broader society in some respect. In its earliest days it meant showing compassion in a world where there was very little of that.  In the Middle Ages it meant pursuing peace in a society of warrior nobles who convinced themselves that even wars could be "holy."  Later it meant opposing slavery when society was by and large okay with that.  And today it might mean insisting that modern society's wide-open acceptance of recreational drug use and all manner of sexual practices is not right.

The assumption that is evident in peoples' identification of "bigotry" on the part of those who don't see things the way they do is that morality is inherent, and religion is just kind of grafted on by way of justification. (For instance, the implication is that Christians who oppose same-sex marriage are people who feel that way and use the Bible to justify it. I think the reality for many Christians (and probably people of other faiths) is that at least some of the moral rules they must adopt wouldn't be their choice if it weren't prescribed by their religion.)

Many times individuals, (for instance police and military), must uphold rules regardless of what they think about them. Probably many, if not most, professionals also find themselves subject to requirements that they would not choose, or would modify. The only choice is to accept the rules, or leave the profession. The same applies to faith communities.

[Istiblennius]

A bit of a sidetrack, but I find it interesting too that no-one is discussing that many WNBA players work in other countries in large part due to the enormous misogyny inherent in American (and global) sports. They can't command the salaries the men's teams, even when, like with soccer, they far outperform the men.

Not to open a whole other can of worms, but the definition of "outperform" here is very much in question. Practially speaking, it's the audience size that determines profitability, and womens' team sports don't remotely match mens' in this regard. If they can get the paying fans, the money will follow.

You are right and I don't think it is a new can of worms. I guess I'm just thinking about how much historical structural sexism might be behind the market forces. I found it a super big bummer how much the Men's team got to *not* win the World cup compared to how much the Women's team got to win it.

And now that this thread moved on - my favorite bible story was always the one where Jesus opened up a can of whup-ass on the hypocrites at the temple. One of my favorite things about Jesus is how pissed he got at hypocrites. I suspect he'd be real displeased with many of his modern "followers".

[marshwiggle]

A bit of a sidetrack, but I find it interesting too that no-one is discussing that many WNBA players work in other countries in large part due to the enormous misogyny inherent in American (and global) sports. They can't command the salaries the men's teams, even when, like with soccer, they far outperform the men.

Not to open a whole other can of worms, but the definition of "outperform" here is very much in question. Practially speaking, it's the audience size that determines profitability, and womens' team sports don't remotely match mens' in this regard. If they can get the paying fans, the money will follow.

You are right and I don't think it is a new can of worms. I guess I'm just thinking about how much historical structural sexism might be behind the market forces. I found it a super big bummer how much the Men's team got to *not* win the World cup compared to how much the Women's team got to win it.

You do know that the women rejected the contract that the men accepted, don't you? Then, when they were dissatisfied withe the contract they negotiated, they demanded to retroactively get the men's contract?

[Parasaurolophus]

1) Viktor Bout was in no sense of the term a 'low-value prisoner'-- are you nuts?   Do you have rocks in your brain?   He is a scumbag of the first order, and has the blood of thousands on his hands.   Every day that he will not be incarcerated is a day that he can also continue his activities, safe in Putin's protection whilst drinking vodka at a Black Sea dacha, or something like this.  Now tell me how it would be that you could explain to the families of some hapless Third World victims of revolutionaries, terrorists, or the like, to whom Bout sells weapons next year, when said bad guys use said weapons to blow up innocents?   'we're sorry, but we really had to get this druggie ballplayer out', really just won't cut it.

Bout is absolutely a scumbag of the first order. That doesn't make him a valuable prisoner, however. I may be wrong, of course, but his value to Russia seems more symbolic than anything; he's been out of the arms game long enough that I expect it'll be hard for him to get stuck in again. As for his value to the US... I would be surprised if he had any, frankly. He also had just six years remaining in his sentence..

That said, it's worth remembering that a number of scumbags of the first order--who are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths--walk free in the US today, and even enjoy a fair bit of status as venerated doyens. If we care about the families of "hapless Third World victims," then Henry Kissinger, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and many others should be in shackles and awaiting trial in The Hague. I expect the explanation to those victims is the same as it always is: there is no explanation, because their interests don't actually matter to us (even if they should).