My Life Is the Poem I Would Have Scribbled on the Men’s Room Wall

Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and contributor of Cato Unbound. He's on twitter as JasonKuznicki. His interests include political theory and history.

Related Post Roulette

25 Responses

  1. North says:

    Aww, couldn’t happen to a nicer zealot.Report

  2. Scott says:

    Who cares?Report

    • Barry in reply to Scott says:

      @Scott, “Who cares?”

      Those of us who have to deal with their influence and power. Namely anybody living in the USA.Report

      • Scott in reply to Barry says:


        So Rekers is a hypocrite and a liar.Does that make him special? Maybe so as it seems to make Jason feel better about his life. I deal with hypocrites and a liars every day, but then again I am an attorney.Report

        • Jason Kuznicki in reply to Scott says:


          The incident bears on my life in only one respect. An individual dedicated to disrupting my life and my family has been publicly discredited. And therefore I am happy. Why shouldn’t I be?

          I’m a bit sorry for Rekers, but not all that much. It’s not like I was out there trying to make his private life illegal. He brought his troubles entirely on himself.Report

        • Barry in reply to Scott says:

          @Scott, Yes, he’s special, at least compared to us. Read about his background. And working with James Dobson and his crew makes him connected with some sleazeballs who have a fair amount of influence.

          Every little thing which reveals these people to be the sh*ts that they are is a good thing, because it whittles away at their influence.Report

  3. Bob Cheeks says:

    North, olde palsy, my wife told me the other day she’s specifically praying for you. So, are you:
    A. Pissed off, and stop it now!
    B. Coldly indifferent.
    C. Grateful, and keep it up.

    Jason, you posting is both good and bad. Bad in the sense that’s it’s a puerile example of failed dialectics, which really isn’t necessary. Consequently, allow me to recommend you read Cicero’s comment on “twisted opinions.”
    It’s good in this quote of yours: “I’ve never really believed that it was possible to reconcile Christianity with homosexuality. The scriptures seem clear enough to me — to be a Christian is to be opposed to same-sex sexual relations. The only real question is how Christianity will oppose homosexuality: Will it be in the way that Jews oppose eating shellfish? Or will it be in the way that Muslim fundamentalists oppose cartoons of Mohamed? That is, will the political means be in play, or not? ”
    Now, dude, that’s insightful and worthy of a exchange…and, if this keeps up my wife will be praying for you too! (In the spirit of full disclosure, she prays for me too!).Report

    • Jason Kuznicki in reply to Bob Cheeks says:

      I did not intend the post as an exercise in dialectics at all, but simply as part of an ongoing character study. There seems to be a distinct type here that recurs. I find that interesting, anyway.

      As to prayer, I don’t think there’s anyone listening at the other end, and thus you are mostly wasting your effort. If however your prayers bring you to be a better friend to me, then they aren’t a total waste. What effect do they have? I’m curious.Report

      • Bob Cheeks in reply to Jason Kuznicki says:

        @Jason Kuznicki, Jason, you are officially my new pal and, consequently, will have to suffer the sundry weights and burdens associated with my friends.
        Re: ‘prayers,’ the supplication and submission before the divine, my own thoughts fall along the lines that these sundry pneumatic irruptions are intimately personal, occurring as they do in one’s psyche..if we may borrow from the Greeks. As such an immanentized interpretation falls short predicated on the full analysis of the event in consciousness….basically it’s between you and Jesus.
        With that said, let me reccommed Von Schilling’s inquiries into freedom inherent in the divine and consequently in man. It’s truly insightful stuff…er, what I can grasp of it.
        I am disturbed to see that you don’t recognized the transcendent pole of the metaxy and I would ask that you might leave that decision open for a little while and perhaps we might have an opportunity to discuss the tension of existence, et al.
        I’m finishing up a paper on gnosticism and the Christian theophany and when it’s published I’ll link you guys to it and youns can beat me up…my thesis is that gnosticism, an imperative that permeates society, is in fact an expression of the demonic. This paper is the first part of a two part series where the second paper will deal with modernity, assuming I can talk the editor into publishing it.Report

        • North in reply to Bob Cheeks says:

          @Bob Cheeks, Bob, please do. I don’t know enough about Theology or English to make heads or tails of all your writing but I’ll still get my Websters and slog through it because the parts I do understand are interesting.Report

          • Renauld in reply to North says:

            I know enough english and theology to know that Bob is a pretentious fraud who believes people will respect his simplistic and mainstream right-wing pronouncements if he couches them in faux-academic cant.

            His post on transhumanism is a great example of pure obfuscation. In the end he simply calls the transhumanists fools and morons but never makes any specific arguments or critiques. Yet he manages to fill the page with the contents of his thesaurus.

            This is exactly the kind of basement dwelling ersatz intellectual that the internet tends to cater to because there will always be those in awe of his ability to say absolutely nothing in a needlessly complicated manner.

            Maybe it’s just a satire, like some Borat-esque version of the Sokal hoax. Either way the continued humoring of this man is a blot on both this website and First Things. Anyone new to this community would think us all the most gullible kind of would-be cultist easily entranced by his bologna.Report

    • North in reply to Bob Cheeks says:

      @Bob Cheeks, Bob, first and most importantly my warmest to the charitable Mrs. Cheeks.
      Being the agnostic squish that I am I view prayers with a mixture of curiosity and indifference that would probably amount to a combination of the latter part of option B and the former part of option C. If there is someone on the other side of that great dark cloud of the unknowing picking up and considering the little paper boats that we as a people are earnestly sailing out to him/her then I am grateful that one of them has my name written on its sail. If not then I can be grateful for the charity and positive thoughts that are implied by the effort.

      With all prayers though it occurs to me (and others before me) that all prayers are answered if we are willing to admit that most of the time the answer is “no”.

      So, that said, please convey to your inestimable wife my thanks for her kindness. Also, when Mrs. Cheeks brings my name up with God please ask her to ask that if God chooses to manifest to me, wretched semi-unbeliever that I am, I would be much obliged if it was in the form of an attractive angel or cute cherub rather than a burning bush or anything animal related. It was spring cleaning last weekend and I just finished waxing my floors and washing my carpets. The Son of course is always welcome so long as he isn’t still bleeding from that terrible thing with the Romans. I want to be hospitable and understanding but blood leaves a stain and I don’t’ want my floorboards torn up as the new Lance of Longinus or something.Report

      • Bob Cheeks in reply to North says:


        My Very Dear North,
        At this time,I am praying that: like C. S. Lewis you will be “surprised by joy” and overwhelmed by love. That is the kernel of the prayers to the One who gives you life and loves you best. The Hound of Heaven by Francis Thompson comes to mind.
        Yours, MarthaReport

  4. db says:

    They way you reconcile christianity to homosexuality is by reading the prohibitions on it as culturally contengent. In other words you read it to mean that the way homosexuality was practiced in the Roman era was sinful (in most instances) not that homosexuality is sinful per se. This type of intellectual move is made by almost all christians for other biblical prohibitions. For example Paul clearly says that women should not braid their hair, talk in church, or wear jewelry. Most christians take these to mean that in the Roman era these types of behaviors were associated with other sinful behavior such as pridefulness or promiscuity. As this is no longer the case today braided hair is not considered sinful per se. You just have to look to the deeper meaning and read the instruction slightly less literally.Report

  5. Rufus says:

    I’ve never worried about it, but again, I don’t take the Bible literally anway. I’ve heard gay Christians say they just focus on the passages in which Christ spoke about homosexuality (none), and ignore the rest of them.

    I once asked my father about this: he’s lapsed Catholic and really likes the gays next door. He said something like, “What I get from Leviticus is that there were gays already back then, so they must have always existed. The Israelites didn’t like them, but, hell, they didn’t know everything!” Of course, my father is not exactly devout.

    I’m wondering if Leviticus is the first historical source to outright condemn homosexuality. There are plenty of Greek texts that mock catamites, for example, but I don’t know that any of them talk about it as abomination.Report

  6. Rufus says:

    Interestingly, I just read about London cops locking up a street preacher for saying that homosexuality is a sin:
    Probably not a great way to promote tolerance.Report

  7. Jason Kuznicki says:

    Ugh, I just discovered that this post is what you see first when you Google “My life is the poem.” A sad commentary on Americans’ knowledge of their own national poetry.Report

  8. Jaybird says:

    The only real question is how Christianity will oppose homosexuality: Will it be in the way that Jews oppose eating shellfish? Or will it be in the way that Muslim fundamentalists oppose cartoons of Mohamed? That is, will the political means be in play, or not?

    It’ll, eventually, be the way that mainline Protestants oppose the eating of bacon.

    “Well, you have to understand. They were a desert people. There were hygiene considerations and we live under a New Covenant now. The Good Lord has revealed ways for us to protect ourselves from the things that very well could have meant life or death 4000 years ago in a desert.”Report

  9. Mike Schilling says:

    Will it be in the way that Jews oppose eating shellfish? Or will it be in the way that Muslim fundamentalists oppose cartoons of Mohamed?

    And will Muslims ever have an exception for pictures of Mohammad on Chinese restaurant menus?

    At any rate there’s nothing in the Rekers case to disturb the fundamentalist consensus on homosexuality: that it’s evil, but so pleasurable and so tempting that it causes even good men to fall. Rekers’s transparent lies are amusing, yes, but when (I expect in the next few weeks) he makes his tearful confession, he can still do that within his worldview, since he already conflates homosexuality with prostitution. The thing he’ll never admit to is that a gay relationship can be healthy and loving.Report