I like people with an irreverent attitude who say things that make you think. Apparently, around the year 2000 a letter was published called "Why can't I own a Canadian?" It doesn't take long to learn the origin of this letter seems murky. There are various claims as to the authors name, and who it was addressed to.
What if we opt to put that debate aside for a moment, and consider instead what it says? Below, I have removed the parts that are in question, and have left what I consider to be the meat. If you have seen the "original", I know some will question my decisions of worthiness. If so, fine. We disagree. [see update below] The content is worth thinking about, no matter which side of the issue(s) you fall on...
"Why can't I own a Canadian?"
"Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. I do need some advice regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
- Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
- I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
- I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
- When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
- I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
- A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
- Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
- Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
- I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
- My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
The letter closes with this: "God's word is eternal and unchanging." My question: Is that true?
[Update] My friend, Le Hook, questioned why I felt the letter, as referenced, was tainted in serious ways (see first paragraph above). He's a pretty smart guy, so that helped me realize I hadn't been as clear as I should have been (meaning I stunk up the place the first time around). Here's the clarification that I sent him, which also betrays my sentiment towards the letter (something I wanted to avoid):
GST: Le, the point I attempted to make is that the authors name is uncertain, and it is questionable who the letter was actually addressed to. Those errors/omissions taint an otherwise great letter. Further, slyly throwing Schlessinger's religion (in practical effect, her) under the bus adds nothing to the discussion and is a cheap shot under any circumstance. For those who disagree with the sentiments, the factual errors and personal challenges are "easy outs" and will be used to dismiss the entirety. Why open that door unnecessarily?
LH: Now I've got it.
(Lee, I hope I do.) :)