It is very disturbing when students at the college level, especially at an Ivy League school, cannot distinguish between fact and fiction. One would expect that students at an academic powerhouse such as Dartmouth would be able to present a message to the campus without distorting the truth. However, there seems to be people on this campus who think that by distorting truth, they will be able to push forth their agenda.
I was on the BlitzMail computer at Collis several days ago when I noticed a flier for "Dartmouth Gay Pride Weekend May 2-5." I thought that it would be one of those fliers just giving information on events that would be hosted. But below the title, there were two quotes from the Bible. The first was from Samuel 1:26 -- "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." The second from Ruth 1:17 -- "Where thou diest, I will die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me." Below these two quotes was the question "What do you think?"
It is obvious that whoever wrote this flier was intimating that it is quite possible, if not true, that the speaker from the first quote, David, was gay, and the speaker from the second quote, Ruth, was lesbian. An attempt at insinuation, perhaps?
Let us get some facts straight. In case anyone has doubts as to where the Bible stands on homosexuality, let him read Genesis 19 on Sodom and Gomorrah. I should think it is quite clear what the Bible's position is there. Or how about First Corinthians 6:9 where homosexuals are put in the same category as idolaters, adulterers, thieves, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers? The Bible is not too favorable to homosexuality. But the two quotes in question seem to suggest that David and Ruth were indeed homosexuals.
What the author of the flier is doing is what the person who came up with the lawyer joke "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" quoting Shakespeare's Henry VI did. Taken out of context, Shakespeare seems to have been bashing lawyers. However, when one reads the context of the quote one realizes that this is not so. The line is spoken by Dick the Butcher who is suggesting that by getting rid of all the lawyers, chaos would occur, and thereby promote the conspiracy to overthrow the king. Not so funny after, is it?
The same mistake is made in the quotes with the flier. In two Samuel 1:26, David (who later becomes King David) laments the death of Jonathan who was killed in war. What is the relationship between David and Jonathan? If you look back in one Samuel, you will see that David, on the side of Israel, killed Goliath and the King of Israel at the time, Saul, became jealous of the former because of his many victories in combat. And so, Saul tried to kill David. Jonathan, son of Saul and friend of David, knowing that Saul's intentions were unjust made an oath to David that he would unconditionally protect the latter from his father's sword. At one point, Saul even tried to kill Jonathan for trying to protect David. So the love that is being spoken of in the passage is not even close to being homosexual in nature. It is the love not of body, but of friendship, trust, and justice, something that David did not find in women.
The second passage is Ruth speaking to her mother-in-law, Naomi. Are we to suggest that there is homosexuality as well as incest involved at the same time? Quite an interesting contention.
Ruth was married to one of two sons of Naomi. There came a time when Naomi's husband and then her two sons died. In her grief, Naomi told her two daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah, to go back to their homeland and get remarried because she had no sons left for them. The two women refused but Naomi insisted. Orpah left weeping, but Ruth, out of loyalty to her mother-in-law, made it clear that she would not abandon her. And so, Ruth 1:16-17 is Ruth's reply to her mother-in-law's telling her to go back to her homeland. This has nothing to do with homosexuality. As a matter of fact, the entire book of Ruth is about the nobility and loyalty of one woman. And the passage in question is demonstrative of the book's intention.
I would like to make it clear that my intention in writing this opinion is not to promote an anti-homosexual message. Rather I find it unfortunate that someone or some people should be so foolish into thinking that they can push forward a message to the students on campus by distorting the truth. If the author or authors of the flier have any pride at all, it is in their ignorance.
