Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Sins of the Mothers
A Christian school in Ontario, California has expelled a 14-year-old for having two lesbian mommies.
"Your family does not meet the policies of admission," Supt. Leonard Stob wrote to Tina Clark, Shay's biological mother. The policy, he added, states that at least one parent cannot engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style [sic] such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual relationship."
|9.23.05 @ 4:34PM|#
Um, is this what Jesus would really want?
Standard Libertarian Disclaimer
My criticism of the aforementioned private institution in no way
constitutes a call for legislation, regulation, or other coercive
remedies. I firmly believe that the law should protect the right of
all such private institutions to associate or not associate with
individuals in accordance with their own beliefs and preferences,
and I am merely exercising my freedom of speech when criticizing
said private entity. It is my opinion that non-libelous speech is a
vital part of the market. This disclaimer protects me from
liability for injuries suffered by any poster who erroneously
ascribes to me any statist position and experiences elevated blood
pressure as a result. Void where prohibited. No purchase
required.
|9.23.05 @ 4:35PM|#
Of course it's their school, private property and blah blah
blah, but as a former Christian I wonder how many personal sins
they ignored before deciding to cast that first stone.
On the bright side, though, there's at least one kid who won't buy
into their worldview.
|9.23.05 @ 4:36PM|#
You know, so long as this is a private school then I'll point to
the "Freedom also includes that with which you disagree" sign and
acknowledge that they are within what I would consider to be their
rights to do this.
However, they still deserve all the mockery and derision that we
can heap upon them for being silly, superstitious, bigoted
losers.
|9.23.05 @ 4:37PM|#
This school is quite possibly funded by public funds. My
understanding is that Canada is big into school vouchers.
Not my country, not my problem, but I can still sneer. No stinkin'
disclaimers, here!
|9.23.05 @ 4:38PM|#
Ontario is also the name of a city in California, Tonio.
Standard Libertarian Disclaimer
My criticism of the aforementioned private institution in no way
constitutes a call for legislation, regulation, or other coercive
remedies. I firmly believe that the law should protect the right of
all such private institutions to associate or not associate with
individuals in accordance with their own beliefs and preferences,
and I am merely exercising my freedom of speech when criticizing
said private entity. It is my opinion that non-libelous speech is a
vital part of the market. This disclaimer protects me from
liability for injuries suffered by any poster who erroneously
ascribes to me any statist position and experiences elevated blood
pressure as a result. Void where prohibited. No purchase
required.
|9.23.05 @ 4:39PM|#
this makes me want to open a school for skeptics. if parents are found to be evangelical christians or psychics, their kids are out. and if they turn out to be scientologists, we'll take their kids away from them.
|9.23.05 @ 4:41PM|#
Ah yes, one of the many reasons I became an atheist: Mindless
bigotry based on who you take to bed with you.
Oh yeah: School is private property... yadda, yadda, yadda.... even
bigots have property rights... yadda... yadda... yadda... just
don't ask me to like it.
There, have I remained sufficently "pure" for some
libertarians?
|9.23.05 @ 4:41PM|#
Thank Goddess she lives in California! There must be a warlock school nearby she could transfer to.
|9.23.05 @ 4:42PM|#
It's harder to get into this school than it is to get into
heaven.
...Way to spread the gospel!
|9.23.05 @ 4:43PM|#
Tom, you didn't make any disclaimers in your message, and you
implicitly criticized a private entity.
I have no choice but to assume that you're a statist.
|9.23.05 @ 4:46PM|#
The school is likely receiving some state
funding.
If that is the case, then would it be ok to criticize and ask for
some sort of "statist" remedy?
No one that gets even 1 public dollar should be allowed to do
this.
|9.23.05 @ 4:48PM|#
It's a Christian school.
Christians are against homosexuality.
Therefore, the Christian school is against
admitting children whose parents are homosexual.
Any questions?
|9.23.05 @ 4:48PM|#
I think you have to undergo a frontal lobotomy to work anywhere in public school administration. My guess is that 90% of the parents whose kids enrolled in this school don't support this action. Whether it be zero tollerance or political correctness or this, the stupidity of school administrators never ceases to amaze.
|9.23.05 @ 4:51PM|#
Of course, it has just occurred to me that the conservatives
will claim that these parents tried to put their kid into the
school for the sole purpose of trying to drum up media attention
against it when they expelled her. ��That devious �Gay Agenda� with
their intrigues and conspiracies, trying to bring down Christianity
with their sodomy and their AIDS.�
Nope, I wouldn't put it past Hanity of Limbaugh for a second.
Larry A|9.23.05 @ 4:54PM|#
I just wonder how many of the parents are married to and sleeping with previously divorced spouses, and thus fall under the biblical definition of "adulteror." After all, that's one of the Big Ten Do-Nots.
|9.23.05 @ 4:55PM|#
Therefore, the Christian school is against admitting
children whose parents are homosexual.
Well, the Judeo-Christian God did mention that he does punish the
children for the...ahem... "sins" of their parents.
There's a loving deity for you.
|9.23.05 @ 4:55PM|#
Akira-
You just criticized something that a person might say. Do you
oppose free speech?
See, the only way to do that is to include a disclaimer: Obviously
you support their freedom to say what they want, and you would
never call for any coercive measures to restrict their speech and
you respect the right of a private radio station to air whatever
they want to air. You are merely exercising your own freedom of
speech and your right as a consumer to decide what radio station
you listen to. You are no liable for high blood pressure
experienced by anybody who misunderstands you. Void where
prohibited. No purchase necessary.
OK, that's the last time I'll do it in this thread. I think my
point is made.
|9.23.05 @ 4:56PM|#
...such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual
relationship.
And the obvious follow-up question, how many unmarried hetero
couples will be getting refund checks next week?
|9.23.05 @ 4:56PM|#
Akira,
I liked "Hannity of Limbaugh" better. I always figured that Hannity
was birthed from some of Limbaugh's fat (that explains the loss of
blubber) after all. Hannity is sort of the social conservative
version of Athena in that way. :)
|9.23.05 @ 4:58PM|#
Akira,
"For the sins of your fathers you, though guiltless, must suffer."
- Horace, "Odes," III, 6, l. 1
|9.23.05 @ 5:00PM|#
Heh. I got two classical references in on the same thread. Momma told me that Greek and Latin learnin' would come in useful some day. :)
|9.23.05 @ 5:01PM|#
If the story were about the son of a hunter tossed out of a
private vegan school, I imagine there would be a slightly different
tone to the responses. While most libertarians are bright enough to
avoid overt hypocrisy, many cannot avoid the temptation of saying
the nonrational actions of a nonrational private entity sticks in
their craw... particularly when the entity is religious.
Oh, and prove the school is receiving public funding, and then
criticize it. To assume this without evidence is just lazy and
unworthy of reasonable discourse.
|9.23.05 @ 5:07PM|#
...visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. Exodus 34:7
|9.23.05 @ 5:11PM|#
I really need more information before I can decide what to think
about this.
Do they have any pictures? Or video?
|9.23.05 @ 5:15PM|#
Well, better a child be denied an education than someone send "the wrong message"...
|9.23.05 @ 5:19PM|#
Oddly, in Ezekiel 20:
"The son shall not bear the iniquity [sin, wickedness] of the
father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the
righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
|9.23.05 @ 5:24PM|#
Jose Ortega y Gasset,
Its pretty rare these days for private schools to get no public
funding from some level of goverment. Apparently words like
"likely" and so forth have no meaning to you whatsoever.
If the story were about the son of a hunter tossed out of a
private vegan school, I imagine there would be a slightly different
tone to the responses.
No, I'd find the policy equally short-sighted, P.C., etc. Nice
strawman nonetheless.
...particularly when the entity is religious.
Oh no! Say it isn't so! Some people aren't fond of religion! *gasp*
Of course I realize that to you, being fond of the elitist Jose
Ortega y Gasset, religion is a means of social control and a way to
stop the degradation of modern, capitalist society.
|9.23.05 @ 5:25PM|#
Therefore, the Christian school is against admitting
children whose parents are homosexual.
Any questions?
I've got a question!
Does this exclusivity go all the way up the chain of command? ...Is
God keeping the children of "homosexuals" out of heaven now? When
did this new policy take effect?
...'cause if they're claiming to be Christian, and they're more
exclusive about their admissions than God is about admissions into
heaven, then I got a big problem with them.
That kid's good enough for the creator of the universe to sacrifice
himself for but not good enough to get into their little school?
Somebody explain that contradiction to me in theological
terms--please.
|9.23.05 @ 5:27PM|#
The policy, he added, states that at least one parent cannot
engage in practices...
If same sex marriage isn't legal then the school shouldn't
recognize the couple as "parents". That leaves the biological
father - who hasn't been proven to violate the school policy - as
the other parent. Shouldn't the kid be allowed to stay in
school?
|9.23.05 @ 5:29PM|#
Since I don't know if this particular school gets funding from
the public or not, I'd like to throw my outrage at the House of
Rep. for this
Head Start legislation instead
From the article:
The Republican-led House approved a bill that lets churches and
other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share
their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars
Does this qualify as outrageous?
Timothy|9.23.05 @ 5:31PM|#
If the story were about the son of a hunter tossed out of a
private vegan school, I imagine there would be a slightly different
tone to the responses. While most libertarians are bright enough to
avoid overt hypocrisy, many cannot avoid the temptation of saying
the nonrational actions of a nonrational private entity sticks in
their craw... particularly when the entity is religious.
Well, let's see, of you read thoreau's Standard Libertarian
Disclaimer [(C) thoreau 2005], you might change your tune. Man, I
guess not even the standard disclaimer is good enough for some
people. Ah well.
Save a cow, eat a vegetarian.
|9.23.05 @ 5:34PM|#
at least one parent cannot engage in practices "immoral or
inconsistent with a positive Christian life style...
I wonder if children whose parent's are divorced are being expelled
as well? Last I checked divorce is pretty inconsistent with a
"positive christian lifestyle". I'm guessing that they have a
tiered morality system where some sins are more sinful than
others?
Timothy|9.23.05 @ 5:34PM|#
Somebody explain that contradiction to me in theological
terms--please
Religion is dumb. Is that concise enough?
|9.23.05 @ 5:39PM|#
Timothy,
According to the Jose-PC protocols one can't say bad things about
religion. :)
|9.23.05 @ 5:46PM|#
According to the Jose-PC protocols one can't say bad things
about religion. :)
According to some other people on this forum, one can't say bad
things about private businesses.
No human institution or organization should be above criticism.
|9.23.05 @ 5:47PM|#
While this school, if indeed completely private, has every right to do this a school like this shows how troublesome Shrub's taxpayer dollars to private schools idea is. Once government crosses this line it will have to decide whether school policies are appropriate and we won't be any further from the contentious social issue debates we have over schools (sex ed, the new push for UD, etc.).
|9.23.05 @ 5:49PM|#
How do we know both parents are "immoral"? It seems unlikely the sperm came from a lesbian. Or is it immoral to boink a current or future lesian?
|9.23.05 @ 5:57PM|#
Religion is dumb. Is that concise enough?
Some of its practitioners are dumber than others. ...I've noticed
that some of the stupidest--regardless of denomination--seem to run
religious schools.
Let's hope the people who pay the bills at that place are smarter
than the idiots running it.
...It's one thing to be stupid about intelligent design, it's
another to publicly deny the value of this kid in God's eyes and
continue to call yourself a Christian. ...I think there's a
commandment against that.
|9.23.05 @ 5:58PM|#
I'm always amazed at stories like these, where gays & �ber-Christians mix. Shouldn't the two annihilate each other, like matter & anti-matter?
Timothy|9.23.05 @ 6:02PM|#
Tom: Fair enough. Probably pretty accurate generally, I was mostly being flippant.
|9.23.05 @ 6:03PM|#
thoreau,
According to some other people on this forum, one can't say bad
things about private businesses.
I've as yet to see anyone write that.
|9.23.05 @ 6:10PM|#
I've as yet to see anyone write that.
Not every message that's conveyed is stated explicitly.
|9.23.05 @ 6:12PM|#
The kid probably had trace quantities of lesbianism all over her
clothing and therefore presented a health, not to mention moral,
risk to the other children.
I don't know why the school simply didn't force the girl to wear a
sign saying,"INFECTED WITH LESBIANISM: SUBJECT TO QUARANTINE," and
let the other children chase her from the premises at
gunpoint.
I mean, where's the fun in having an intolerant religion if you
can't really cut loose and victimize people?
|9.23.05 @ 6:14PM|#
1) I agree that if the school is completely private, "their
school, their rules."
2) Seems like a dumb thing for the school to do, though. If they
really believe the kid is being raised in a morally dysfunctional
home, then continued attendance is his only change to receive a
decent, moral, Christian education, right?
3) Plus, the Christian school could teach the kid that his moms'
lifestyle is immoral, and all the while get paid by the two moms to
do so, via tuition.
4) And if the two moms objected, they could be the ones who took
action to pull the kid out of school. They can hardly insist that
the school change its teachings.
5) The only way the school's action could be partly un-dumb is if
Christian parents are clamoring to send their kids there, and there
is a waiting list to get in. (Which may well be the case.) In this
case, the school may be predisposed to expel kids at the drop of a
hat, especially if someone on the waiting list has school/church
connections. I mean, is a well-known pillar and generous benefactor
of the community.
I really don't think this is what Jesus would do.
|9.23.05 @ 6:18PM|#
(sigh)
First, provide some data on the percentage of private, religious
K-12 schools that receive public funding. Second, demonstrate that
this particular private, religious school receives public funding.
I will wager that this particular religious school does not receive
public funds. In the unlikely event it does, that gravy train is
about to jump the tracks.
Speaking of strawmen, I did not say that one ought not criticize
religion. I merely observed that religion tends to provoke some
libertarians. They cannot seem to let this pass without giving into
the temptation of pointing out what they feel is the apparent
hypocrisy of the school's actions... as if this personal
disapproval means anything. Most libertarians support the freedom
of association... it just seems to give many gas pains when the
freedom is exercised by a religious entity.
Finally, thank you Kreskin, but my fondness to Ortega y Gasset is
related to big game hunting. You want to keep arguing like this,
please use a tissue to clean up when you're done.
|9.23.05 @ 6:26PM|#
his only change = his only chance
Jose -- earlier this week there was a thread, which I only skimmed,
about "people who enjoy watching sports" vs. "people who don't
enjoy watching sports" that came close to eliciting charges of
bigotry. I saw a few small parallels to our occasional
theist/atheist brouhahas here.
|9.23.05 @ 7:27PM|#
http://www.ocschools.org/about/admissions.cfm
Apparently they require a "Family Interview". I wonder if the
interview took place if the parents lied to get her in the
school.
I wonder exactly what the conversation was at the football
game.
|9.23.05 @ 7:32PM|#
Jose, I still don't understand what you're saying... I can say that Christians have a right to practice their religion, while at the same time thinking (And saying) that they're idiots for even being religious in the first place. I don't see how that's a contradiction. Same thing that most of us would say that the Klan has a right to free speech, but they're still fucking morons. If anything, I think that what you're seeing is something called "integrity". It's a lost virtue in this country these days.
|9.23.05 @ 7:45PM|#
"I merely observed that religion tends to provoke some
libertarians. They cannot seem to let this pass without giving into
the temptation of pointing out what they feel is the apparent
hypocrisy of the school's actions... as if this personal
disapproval means anything."
Speaking for myself...
Some libertarians harbor Christian tendencies; indeed, some
libertarians might even be Christians. ...I know of some
people with libertarian tendencies that predicate their
libertarianism on their Christian beliefs. ...and it's easy to see
how.
...The Golden Rule sounds a lot like "Your rights begin where other
people's end.", doesn't it? Indeed, lurking behind the bit about
rights, some people answer questions about why we should afford a
special value to people's rights with remarkably Christian
responses.
Given that, it isn't hard to imagine some libertarians criticizing
this school's policy not only as libertarians but also as
Christians.
...but even if a libertarian isn't a Christian, what's wrong with
pointing out that the discriminatory policy of a private, Christian
institution is inconsistent with the basic principles of
Christianity?
|9.23.05 @ 7:48PM|#
yeah cuz there is no point in trying to save the soul of child when his parents are going to hell...this doesn't even make sense from the christian view point.
|9.23.05 @ 8:08PM|#
I took Jose's comment (at least his second one, which seemed
more clear) to be referring more generally to a strong
anti-religious sentiment that pops up here on most threads about
something stupid/hypocritical/evil done by someone in the name of
religion. I don't think it's been strong at all on this thread, but
on others it's overpowering. It manifests itself in various ways,
including exaggeration of the harm done by, and/or willful
ignorance the good done by, various religious institutions...
comically stupid and condescending caricatures of religious
beliefs... general expressions of disdain about the stupidity or
weakness of anyone who's not an atheist, etc....
But like I said, I don't think that's really happened on this
thread, so it doesn't seem like the best place for that argument
(if that is his argument).
|9.23.05 @ 8:21PM|#
I wouldn't get my hopes too high about Jesus. He cursed an olive
tree.
Talk about kicking a fireplug.
Martha fumbled the baton from Jesus in the existential relay race.
Seems The Donald has already lured her over to the Dark Side.
Whatcha gonna do?
|9.23.05 @ 8:26PM|#
Some libertarians harbor Christian tendencies; indeed, some
libertarians might even be Christians.
Present.
Given that, it isn't hard to imagine some libertarians
criticizing this school's policy not only as libertarians but also
as Christians.
Present.
I think what may have set Jose off, and what irked me just very
slightly, were:
1) "This school dumb" is to "religion dumb" as "Enron bad" is to
"capitalism bad."
2) Some people seemed downright eager to assume the school was
receiving gov't funds, ... implying an eagerness to seek a gov't
remedy?
3) Some of the ridicule was based on the false assumption that the
school considered the kid sinful, rather than attemting to
sanction the parents. I think that if you're going to mock
something -- however mockable it might be -- at least know what
you're talking about. Otherwise it's just bad style.
Just as it grits my teeth when critics of evolution say, "If people
descended from chimpanzees, how come we still have chimpanzees,
haaaa? And if one species evolves into another, how come we've not
once seen a fish give birth to a frog, haaaa?"
Or when somebody says, "Libertarians want to build a utopia where
all community decisions are made by WalMart, everyone carries a
gun, children smoke crack, and we all live happily ever after." For
some reason, that brand of stuff really chalkboards my fingernails.
No doubt I take it more seriously than I should.
|9.23.05 @ 8:27PM|#
Totally off-topic, but I was looking through the archives and
found something that people here might find interesting:
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2003/09/everybody_knows.shtml
Check out the last non-spam post at the bottom, stamped 12:57
pm.
|9.23.05 @ 8:42PM|#
Present
Anarchists can't be Christians--everybody knows that. ...and
Christians can't work with HR people on a regular basis.
...just kidding! ; )
|9.23.05 @ 8:46PM|#
It's funny lookin' back at the archives and seeing people who
used to post here way back when...
What ever happened to Sir Real? ...and where the heck is Mo? Has
anyone seen or heard from Mo lately?
|9.23.05 @ 9:05PM|#
Tom C: I had some follow-up e-mails with three or four people
after the Chicago get-together. Mo has had computer troubles --
said he was only using it when he really needed to, I think. Plus
he's been really busy lately. I did seem him pop up
occasionally.
I'm sure he'll be back once he gets his computer fixed and things
slow down for him.
fyodor|9.23.05 @ 9:10PM|#
thoreau,
I checked out your url. Interesting comment there. See, he wasn't
all bad! :-) But then, the air around here does seem a bit easier
to breathe without him...
msfbecfin|9.23.05 @ 9:31PM|#
Their school. Their rules.
Comment by: ed at September 23, 2005 04:33 PM
It's a Christian school.
Christians are against homosexuality.
Therefore, the Christian school is against admitting children whose
parents are homosexual.
Any questions?
Comment by: passingthru at September 23, 2005 04:48 PM
Sure, it's their school, and they can keep/reject whom they please.
It certainly appears not to be "Christian" in the sense of what
Christ taught, however - if he gave his life for us sinners, surely
he'd let a little kid stay in school. The hypocrites - they THINK
they're punishing the parents (what happened to Christ's admonition
that it should be s/he who is without sin who casts the first
stone), but it's the kid they're hurting. Query whether the school
might be subject to a suit for false advertising.
|9.23.05 @ 10:30PM|#
In Exodus 34:7, God was bluntly suggesting to Moses that the
Jews better fall in line and obey the law or he was gonna put the
smackdown on them "unto the third and to the fourth
generation".
This is normal because the Jews, chosen people that they are, are
supposed to adhere to higher standards or face the consequences.
Our God tends to be more tolerant of Gentiles, except when they get
in His or our way (when we are righteously following his orders to
kill, conquer, etc.).
Don't get in His way. He's not your Christian God of love, efter
all.
|9.24.05 @ 1:11AM|#
Jose (aka, Heidegger wannabe),
(sigh)
First, provide some data on the percentage of private,
religious K-12 schools that receive public funding.
Why? Public funding of private schools (religious or otherwise) is
common. I guess it must be rare, and that's why there are so many
court challenges to the various types of practices in place.
Second, demonstrate that this particular private, religious
school receives public funding.
I e-mailed their administrator earlier today. I'll see if I get a
response.
...as if this personal disapproval means anything.
Yes, freedom of speech, get used to it (you being a fan of old Jose
I know you despise such things - Jose being an elitist, aristocrat
loving fucker and all).
Also, one has to ask what exactly does your personal disapproval of
atheists mean exactly?
...it just seems to give many gas pains when the freedom is
exercised by a religious entity.
I find any ideology opposed to individual liberty to be troublesome
in that way. Doesn't mean I am going to ask the government to go
after them though.
Boo hoo. Can't hear the bad things being said about religion;
must cover ears and whine.
Grow up and quit being such a whiny little baby.
|9.24.05 @ 5:41AM|#
Forget the tissue; use a towel.
I adore free speech... it makes it much easier to determine who is
an idiot. My frustration with the knee jerk libertarian impulse to
kick religion is the political stupidity. In America where a
majority of voters purport some degree of religion or spirituality,
this habit ensures libertarian politicians remain slightly more
popular than sex offenders. You are the answer for the question: If
libertarians are so smart, why can't they win elections?
The libertarian mocking religion 1) does not change the minds of
the faithful; 2) does not change the minds of the faithless. From
where I sit, the only discernable result is that the general
electorate will continue to see libertarians as a bunch of arrogant
asshats. But hey, you are obviously too busy being right to worry
about actually advancing the cause of individual liberty.
|9.24.05 @ 6:53AM|#
Hakluyt-
Maybe it would be helpful if you just presented a form in which
public aid sometimes reaches religious schools. Are you talking
about vouchers? CA doesn't have them. Federal grants for some
specific program? School lunches? Special ed? What?
I'm not asking you to investigate this particular school, just to
point out a few ways that such aid might come about.
|9.24.05 @ 8:18AM|#
My frustration with the knee jerk libertarian impulse to
kick religion is the political stupidity.
Jose, what you're saying makes perfect sense. But in reality, all
of us who are registered, voting Libertarians have already thrown
away any *real* chance of having a *real* impact on major
elections, at least in our lifetime. We do it voluntarily, knowing
that we're considered "out there" by "normal" people. So if most
people already consider us a bit off, why compromise on something
as ridiculous as religion? Again, I see it as an issue of
integrity. Personally, I'm gonna stand for what I believe in.
Otherwise, I could just cave in and choose Republican/Democrat and
compromise *most* of my beliefs.
|9.24.05 @ 8:44AM|#
"From where I sit, the only discernable result is that the
general electorate will continue to see libertarians as a bunch of
arrogant asshats. But hey, you are obviously too busy being right
to worry about actually advancing the cause of individual
liberty."
I agree that libertarians could do more to appeal to Christians,
but I also think Christians could do more to appeal to
libertarians.
Libertarians are part of the swing vote--more so, I suspect, now
that neoconservatives, budget pigs and evangelicals have worked so
hard to alienate us from the Republican Party. The swing vote
doesn't seem so important when government isn't divided among the
parties, but that situation won't last forever.
...Once the Security Moms grind their swords back into SUVs and
become Soccer Moms again, we may find ourselves the prettiest girl
at the dance. ...and when I hold my finger up in the air--no I'm
not just flicking off the evangelicals--I think I can feel
the wind shifting.
|9.24.05 @ 10:04AM|#
looks like another child *ahem* left behind thanks to the christian right. You get that? a reference to both the book series and the education initative. That my friends is gold.
|9.24.05 @ 12:13PM|#
"...The Golden Rule sounds a lot like "Your rights begin
where other people's end.", doesn't it?"
I guess that should have been the other way around, but you know
what I meant, right?
|9.24.05 @ 12:19PM|#
Jose,
Why exactly should libertarians be pandering to folks who don't
agree with any of the positions of libertarians? Also, unlike
thoreau, I'm not someone who gets gets existential angst from poor
performance in elections.
But hey, you are obviously too busy being right to worry about
actually advancing the cause of individual liberty.
How does pandering to anti-liberty, religious types advance the
cause of liberty?
|9.24.05 @ 12:20PM|#
"Um, is this what Jesus would really want?"-thoreau
However, Jesus would handle this situation, if He does indeed view
homosexual acts as immoral He would certainly tell the lesbian
couple to "go and sin no more". Jesus preaching seems to me to put
punishment for sin as God's domain, not man's. The school, I
believe, sees that by admitting this child they are implicitly
condoning couple's lifstyle. The majority of posters and staff here
think that not condoning homosexual behavior is an action worthy of
condemnation.
|9.24.05 @ 12:22PM|#
Folks like Jose (aka, wannabe Heidegger) are always going on about the benefits of pandering to some particular group. However, the main benefit seems to fall with the group being pandered to, whereas libertarians just end up feeling like a used condom in the process. No thanks.
|9.24.05 @ 12:30PM|#
"I've as yet to see anyone write that."
Yo, Gary Hakluyt, would you care to dig up the posts in which I
wrote that I opposed capitalism, didn't believe in property rights,
or thought ordinary people were incapable of making wise decisions
about development or retirement? Thanks, hon.
thoreau, Hakluyt may not be very good at reading between the lines,
but he certainly is enthusiastic enough.
|9.24.05 @ 12:31PM|#
thoreau,
I think you should be more concerned with what Paul wanted, since
its Paul's work that makes up the bulk of the New Testament.
|9.24.05 @ 12:35PM|#
...would you care to dig up the posts in which I wrote that
I opposed capitalism...
Never wrote that you did or didn't.
...didn't believe in property rights...
You wrote that they were unimportant; then you claimed that you
were just joking. Of course your statement didn't have any
emoticons, etc., and the language wasn't obviously sarcastic, so
I'd say that you were serious.
...thought ordinary people were incapable of making wise
decisions about development...
In regards to Kelo you called the property owners dupes of
the IJ. That's the sort of elitist statement I'd expect from
someone in government.
No, I'm not going to go digging up posts. You know very well what
you wrote and trying to be coy about the matter says enough by
itself.
|9.24.05 @ 12:38PM|#
joe,
Also, also I recall regarding your statement on property rights it
took you several statements to finally come up with the 'just
joking' line.
|9.24.05 @ 12:50PM|#
joe,
Seeing ordinary people who fight the so-called "beneficence" of
government as dupes (or worse) is a common thread that runs
throughout "reform" movements in U.S. history. The benighted masses
must sit and wait for decisions from those in government so they
can know how to properly order their lives. This is at the heart of
the "Progressive" movement (which is why forced sterilization of
"inferior" people was such a popular idea amongst a group of people
considered today as liberal heroes) for example.
|9.24.05 @ 12:55PM|#
to that hakluyt character
Sir,
I'm an atheist myself and I find your discussion style totally
obnoxious. You are intolerably inpolite, arrogant and rude. Shame
on you! People like you give atheism a bad name.
|9.24.05 @ 12:56PM|#
One of the things that strikes you when you look at the Progressive era (a period that most pro-government types hail) was just how elitist and racist this "reform" period was. Probably the shining example of this is the creation of the ABA - in collusion with state and local governments - as a means to weed out non-WASP attorneys from the field of law. Zoning laws were born out of the same desire to properly segregate society, and you still see their segregating effect today.
|9.24.05 @ 1:00PM|#
hugo,
Heh. If you don't like the anti-liberty reality of religious types
that isn't my problem.
|9.24.05 @ 1:02PM|#
hugo,
I'll note that, whatever can be written of my style, you appear to
take no issue with the substance of my statements. Which speaks
volumes I must say.
|9.24.05 @ 1:21PM|#
"In regards to Kelo you called the property owners dupes of the
IJ."
Would you care to find the statement in which I called the property
owners dupes of the IJ?
Oh, I see you wouldn't. There's a shocker. Could it be that you
pulled it out of your ass?
"Seeing ordinary people who fight the so-called "beneficence" of
government as dupes (or worse) is a common thread that runs
throughout "reform" movements in U.S. history. The benighted masses
must sit and wait for decisions from those in government so they
can know how to properly order their lives. This is at the heart of
the "Progressive" movement (which is why forced sterilization of
"inferior" people was such a popular idea amongst a group of people
considered today as liberal heroes) for example." Ahem. I've yet to
see anyone write that. Ahem.
|9.24.05 @ 1:31PM|#
"The school, I believe, sees that by admitting this child
they are implicitly condoning couple's lifstyle."
I'd like to suggest to the Christians that continue to pay tuition
to this school, and/or make donations, that they're implicitly
condoning this school's un-Christian admission policy.
"The majority of posters and staff here think that not
condoning homosexual behavior is an action worthy of
condemnation."
The majority of commenters here--and maybe one staff
member--think that a Christian school discriminating against
children in this way is sufficiently remarkable to merit a
remark.
|9.24.05 @ 1:44PM|#
"Why exactly should libertarians be pandering to folks who don't
agree with any of the positions of libertarians?"
Gary McHakkingbart,
The problem is not being so scornful of anti-liberty religious
types. The problem is being so scornful of all religious types, or
assuming that all religious types are necessarily anti-liberty.
That position is so self-evidently stupid that there's not much
point in even addressing it. And I have a sneaking suspicion that
you're well aware of this distinction that Jose was making (and
Stevo and I too), but you're being deliberately obtuse. What's up
with that?
|9.24.05 @ 2:00PM|#
Hakluyt-
Thanks for informing me about the authorship of the New Testament.
It was very nice of you to offer me that free education, and it's a
shame that it turned out to be superfluous. See, I learned in
Catholic school that Paul's letters are written by Paul.
I suggest you learn a thing or two about what's taught in Catholic
schools before you embarass yourself any further.
Also, there's a big difference between being somebody's gimp and
simply learning how to present your ideas in a polite manner to
people who disagree with you on some things. It's one thing to poke
fun at fundies. I, like any good Catholic, devote a considerable
amount of time to mocking fundies. It's another thing to mock
religious people in general, seeing as how religious people run the
gamut in their opinions on, well, just about everything.
And yes, I know, your prime concern isn't the electoral prospects
of the LP. Neither is mine, believe it or not. But if you ascribe
any worth at all to your ideas, and have any interest in
communicating your ideas to other people in a manner that might
interest them, it helps to not display quite so much
condescension toward religious people. Whatever benefit you might
see in such persuasion, be it electoral benefit or social benefit
or personal satisfaction or whatever, suppressing your display of
condescension can be a useful tool.
Finally, I suggest you stop misrepresenting the opinions of
everybody else before you embarass yourself any further.
|9.24.05 @ 2:03PM|#
joe,
You know what you wrote. If your conscience is so jaded that you
can deny it with a straight face that is fine. Why is that it every
time you demand that I look up a statement for you I end up being,
well, you know, right? You must like the attention I guess.
:)
BTW, I've made this charge on a number of occassions, and its only
now, weeks and weeks later that you are now challenging it. That
tells me you are up to your typical bullshit. if indeed my claim
was erroneous you'd have attacked it long ago.
Ahem. I've yet to see anyone write that. Ahem.
If you don't like your ideology's history I suggest that you drop
your ideology.
J,
The problem is being so scornful of all religious types, or
assuming that all religious types are necessarily
anti-liberty.
The problem is that they are. The religiously (and thus
irrationally) oriented fall basically into one or another of
categories of groups that want to use government to limit liberty
(in generally significant ways) in some fashion or another.
|9.24.05 @ 2:10PM|#
thoreau,
Any serious Catholic is as much a fundamentalist as Protestants
are. They are just fundamentalist in their worship of the Pope and
Catholic doctrine (oh, and "foggy windows" that look like the
Blessed Virgin Mary).
|9.24.05 @ 2:11PM|#
thoreau,
...suppressing your display of condescension can be a useful
tool.
Not for my purposes.
|9.24.05 @ 2:20PM|#
The Republican-led House approved a bill that lets churches and
other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share
their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars
Chicago Tom wrote: Does this qualify as outrageous?
No more so that institutions that practice discrimination by
affirmitive action getting federal tax dollars.
|9.24.05 @ 2:21PM|#
Hakluyt-
If you define "serious" as a synonym for "fundamentalist" then you
are of course right, and serious Catholics are as bad as Protestant
fundamentalists. But then most Catholics aren't "serious" under
that definition. The Franciscans and the School Sisters of Notre
Dame, the two orders that I know best, certainly aren't in that
category.
But many Catholics who consider themselves serious about their
faith use the word "serious" in a sense different than you use it.
Maybe they simply haven't thought through the implications of their
faith. You should get a job at a seminary or Catholic college, and
teach Catholics the real meaning of their faith. No doubt
they'd benefit from your instruction, and would finally understand
that they simply haven't been taking things seriously enough.
I guess it takes an atheist to teach us the true meaning of faith.
If Jesus had only had somebody like you around, to steer him
right...
Oh, and what are your purposes? Besides pissing off everybody that
you debate?
|9.24.05 @ 2:23PM|#
Come to think of it, most Protestants in the US aren't fundamentalists either. I guess what American theists really need is somebody like Hakluyt to help them take their faith more seriously.
|9.24.05 @ 2:26PM|#
If Jesus had only had somebody like you around, to steer him
right...
I was there when Jesus Christ had his moment of doubt and pain.
Made damn sure that Pilate washed his hands and sealed his
fate.
|9.24.05 @ 2:29PM|#
Hak, I think I've made my point. I also think I got your
goat.
You once said you were such a dislikable character because you
enjoyed mocking me. I've gotta tell you, you don't seem to be
having much fun.
|9.24.05 @ 2:36PM|#
thoreau,
No, I define fundamentalist as historians, etc. of religion do; as
a system of thought concerned with returning to and/or maintaining
what the adherents consider the foundational principles of the
religion in question. That quite frankly is what JP II, the
Pontifical College of North American. etc. claim(ed) that they
stood/stand for.
|9.24.05 @ 2:39PM|#
And joe beats a hasty retreat.
_____________
Or is that the Pontifical North American College?
|9.24.05 @ 2:41PM|#
thoreau,
And of course that is what JP II, etc. considered to be a serious,
within the fold, properly minded, etc. Catholic.
|9.24.05 @ 2:42PM|#
Hakluyt-
I don't want to get into a debate over the proper usage of the word
"fundamentalist". But to say that all serious Catholics are
fundamentalists in any sense of the word is to display a
significant amount of ignorance about Catholics, especially
American Catholics (both laity and clergy).
|9.24.05 @ 2:43PM|#
I suggest you sit down and talk to some Catholics below the rank of Cardinal (and not members of Opus Dei) before you embarass yourself any further.
|9.24.05 @ 2:44PM|#
thoreau,
BTW, its not my fault that you're aligned with a thought system
which believes that statues bleed or sweat, fountains associated
with "saints" have curative powers, etc.
|9.24.05 @ 2:44PM|#
"The problem is that they are. The religiously (and thus
irrationally) oriented fall basically into one or another of
categories of groups that want to use government to limit liberty
(in generally significant ways) in some fashion or
another."
I respectfully disagree. There are protestant denominations that
are extremely mistrustful of government.
Some encourage members to claim conscientious objector status if
they're drafted. ...Many lean pro-choice on the grounds that the
banning of abortion respresents an intrusion by the church into
affairs of the state. ...Many opposed Bush's "compassionate
conservatism" because they thought it an invitation for regulation
of church activities.
It's hard to put Unitarians, Adventists, Quakers, etc. into the
same category with Baptists and Evangelicals unless--as you appear
to have done--you put them all under the heading "irrational". I
remain skeptical of the idea that it's only rational to believe in
something if there's "objective" evidence. ...It still seems to me
that in a situation where "objective" evidence is impossible, then
one can go, to a certain extent, with the evidence at
hand. At any rate, I don't think anyone can support the statement
that all Christian groups want to use the government, on
some level, to limit liberty.
...I think you're right to point out--as you've done in the
past--that the religious contribution to progressive causes has
been overstated--especially in the case of abolition. ...but I also
think it's true that Christianity had a role in the cultural
development of the idea that people, as well as their rights, are
inherently valuable.
I'd also like to say that while I'm usually the first to jump into
the fray, in this case, I hope Hakluyt, joe and--is thoreau in this
too now?--all bury the hatchet, regardless of who's wrong--real
soon.
|9.24.05 @ 2:45PM|#
Hakluyt, the most fundamentalist Catholic that I know is deeply
embarassed by stories of bleeding statues and whatnot.
For a guy who claims to know so much you sure display a lot of
ignorance.
|9.24.05 @ 2:47PM|#
Tom Crick-
What am I doing wrong here? I'm basically saying that he's painting
all religion with way too broad a brush. Is that such an
unreasonable stance?
|9.24.05 @ 2:48PM|#
Thoreau,
But to say that all serious Catholics are fundamentalists in
any sense of the word is to display a significant amount of
ignorance about Catholics, especially American Catholics (both
laity and clergy).
Well, as we are all aware, the Papacy under JPII and his successor
has serious issues with the American church, so you make my point.
Also, do you acknowledge that authority is found in the Papacy? Or
are you some sort of throwback Conciliarist?
...and clergy).
The clergy coming out of the Pontifical North American College are
dominated by JP II clones.
|9.24.05 @ 2:52PM|#
Tom Crick,
Most of the Unitarians and Quakers I know favor all the programs
associated with "liberals" (being an atheist I've been to a number
of UU and Quaker services), which of course are a limit to
liberty.
|9.24.05 @ 2:53PM|#
Hakluyt-
You're beyond convincing. You just want to talk trash about a group
of people who are far more complicated, diverse, and sophisticated
than you realize.
I'm done. I see Tom Crick's point. This is a waste of time. Post
whatever you want, you can have the last word.
|9.24.05 @ 2:56PM|#
Thoreau,
You point out one of the main fissures in American Catholic
thought; many of you want to remain part of the Church and accept
the Papacy as the ultimate authority but you don't want all of the
policy-oriented baggage that comes with that. Nevetheless, the last
two heads of your faith have stated, to paraphrase, that serious
Catholics will be fundamentalist Catholics who accept the teachings
of the Church as promulgated by the papacy.
|9.24.05 @ 3:02PM|#
Thoreau,
...complicated, diverse, and sophisticated...
Oh they are certainly quite complex, diverse, etc., nevertheless an
overarching theme of every religion is that the adherents oppose
some variety of liberty. Note that Tom Crick basically argued that
since UU's don't support Bush they aren't really anti-liberty, but
the fact is that in other areas they are indeed anti-liberty (and I
don't even want to get into the complicated discussion of whether
the war was anti-liberty or not).
|9.24.05 @ 3:20PM|#
The word "fundamentalist" actually has a theological meaning,
and it is not "idiot."
The term "fundamentalist," when applied to Christianity, refers to
a return to the fundamentals of the faith, and implies that any
changes and developments since the first century AD are corruptions
of the true faith.
Hence, the term "fundamentalist Catholic" is a contradiction in
terms, as Catholic doctrine teaches that such sources as tradition
and the teachings of the Vatican are as legitimate as sources of
truth as the Bible. So, knock it off.
Oh, and as far as "fundamentalist" Christians go: fine, be that
way, pursue a return to the true faith of the Apostles. But if you
aren't donating all of your property to be held in common ownership
among the members of your church, you aren't a fundamentalist.
You're just old fashioned.
|9.24.05 @ 3:20PM|#
Thoreau,
Your basic problem is that I don't put any stock in your stupid
religion. How any rational person can go along with such horseshit
is beyond me. Of course since most lay Catholics don't as a rule
actually read the Bible (I've had numerous Catholic friends tell me
that their belief isn't Bible-centered, which is why they so rarely
read it) I guess its not that surprising (despite all their talk
about it otherwise, you can generally say the same thing about
Protestants too).
I mean come on? World-wide floods which have no geographic evidence
of their existance? All the animals in the world in one ark? Water
into wine? Loaves and fishes? The sun standing still for a day?
Raising the dead? Burning bushes? The plagues of Egypt (ahh yes,
killing innocent children - nice!). An Ark of the Covenant that
kills when touched? Curing lepers, the blind, etc. If you hadn't
been raised in that religion, would you actually take this bullshit
seriously? No, in all liklihood you'd take it as seriously as you
do the idea that Athena sprang from the body of Zeus. Or the story
that Isis resurrected the dead Osiris so she could bone him and
thus have Horus.
|9.24.05 @ 3:21PM|#
"And joe beats a hasty retreat."
"And thoreau beats a hasty retreat."
Translated from the original French, that reads "Oh, running away
are you? Come back, I'll bite your legs off!"
|9.24.05 @ 3:27PM|#
joe,
I've used the term properly. You're using it as refers to
"fundamentalist Protestants," particularly the variety who argue
for a return to the "primitive" Church of the 1st century. These
include Baptists, members of the Church of Christ, etc.
All the term fundamentalist means of course is what I've written
that it means; a system of thought concerned with returning to
and/or maintaining what the adherents consider the foundational
principles of the religion in question. The parameters of what that
means for Catholics are different for what it means for
Protestants; that doesn't mean that you don't have both
fundamentalist Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants. Your
problem is that you are simply confusing the popular version of
what fundamentalism refers to with what those who study religions
have discussed.
|9.24.05 @ 3:29PM|#
"Most of the Unitarians and Quakers I know favor all the
programs associated with "liberals" (being an atheist I've been to
a number of UU and Quaker services), which of course are a limit to
liberty."
Well that leaves me with the Adventists then.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sda.htm
You might also take a look at the magazine--over a hundred years
old--put out by the only political organization the Adventists have
ever funded--at least the only one of which I'm aware. I understand
it became a seperate organization from the church in 1946., but I
believe they still take up offerings for it) ...It's devoted to the
separation of church and state, and, when I was familiar with it,
it used to fund legal cases provide counsel to cases involving the
separation between church and state, fund the magazine, etc.
http://www.libertymagazine.org/
Take a look at the article "Humility and Freedom". ...I don't think
you'll find an atheist organization as passionate about the
separation of church and state as these Christians are.
...Please note, I consider it tragic that Farwell renamed his
coalition something with "Liberty" in the title--please also note
that this isn't that organization. Like I said, these guys have
been around for a hundred years.
Oh, and the Adventist Church--at least when I was more familiar
with it (through the late eighties I would say)--hadn't taken a
position on abortion or any other political cause. ...The
separation between church and state is all but fundamental to this
religion.
|9.24.05 @ 3:31PM|#
joe and Thoreau's response can be more accurately described this
way:
"Run away! Run away!"
|9.24.05 @ 3:33PM|#
Tom Crick,
Again, you're referring to a specific issue. As is obvious from my
statements I am discussing the entire universe of liberty
issues.
|9.24.05 @ 3:33PM|#
thoreau,
"What am I doing wrong here?"
Nothing! Like I said, I'm usually the first guy to dive in. ...and
I've learned so much from all three of you.
...I just don't like seeing my three favorite commenters--well,
three of my four favorite commenters--go after each other. Let's go
take on the torture apologists or something!
|9.24.05 @ 3:39PM|#
"Again, you're referring to a specific issue. As is obvious
from my statements I am discussing the entire universe of liberty
issues."
...please understand my point. I'm--as you can probably tell--when
I was young, I was more familiar with Adventism than I ever wanted
to be, and I'm not aware of any way in which this organization of
fundamentalist protestants falls into a category that wants to
limit liberty through government.
They're a bunch of libertarians waiting to happen. I even managed
to persuade several to vote for Badnarik in the last election.
...Now, there's only 13 million of them or so, but they're there
and they don't want to limit our liberty through government.
|9.24.05 @ 3:53PM|#
Real question for libertarians here - if everything is privatized, what is to stop the establishment of a self-contained religious tyranny? If you say "nothing", but agree that it's good because it's consistent with Libertarian axioms, you miss out on the fact that people will only accept Libertarianism if it seems GOOD for them! Like, if it has "utility" as Mill would say.
|9.24.05 @ 3:55PM|#
And remember, you can't spell "Libertarianism" without "liberty", or maybe you can. I dunno.
|9.24.05 @ 3:58PM|#
Tom Crick,
No need to worry. joe, I and Thoreau always lock horns and somehow
seem to get over it.
Unfortunately I can't seem to get that adventist website to load.
It may be my internet security protocols.
|9.24.05 @ 4:11PM|#
Wow, this thread is deteriorating rapidly.
With way things are going, anyone want to start a pool as to which
date the "Hakluyt" persona suffers the same fate as the "Gary
Gunnels" persona?
I call 10/15/05!
|9.24.05 @ 4:37PM|#
Hak,
A "Fundamentalist Catholic" would either reject the changes in
doctrine and practice that have come about through tradition and
Vatican teaching (and thus, not be a Catholic, or at least not a
"good" one); accept tham (and thus, not be a fundamentalist); or
accept only some of them while rejecting others (and thus, not be
much of either).
You can call yourself a "Fundamentalist Catholic," and base your
beliefs and practices around those of the early Church, but by
doing so, you are rejecting the doctrines that have emerged since
then, thereby taking yourself out of communion with the mothership,
and ceasing to be a "real" Catholic. Whereas with Protestant
evangelicals, there is not objective standard by which to measure
the orthodoxy of belief, other than those endoresed by each
individual congregation or grouping, and no such set of teachings
that they have to adhere to in order to qualify.
|9.24.05 @ 4:53PM|#
joe-
Join me in the retreat.
Doctor thoreau ran away
Bravely ran away, away
When Hakluyt reared his ornery head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes Doctor thoreau turned about
He ran away and chickened out
I know I said I'd give the last word, but, well, this is just too
much fun!
|9.24.05 @ 5:03PM|#
Brave Brave Brave
Planner joe...
Who almost fought the dreaded Jean of Bart
Who nearly stood up to the feared Croesus of Hakluyt...
And who personally wet himself in a debate about Penn Coal.
God, I am such a fucking nerd.
|9.24.05 @ 5:19PM|#
thoreau: Is there someone else in there we can talk to?
He of many names: No, I'm French. Why do you think I have this
outrageous temper, silly physicist?
|9.24.05 @ 5:20PM|#
OK, that was just bad. I'm in a hurry, hence I didn't even get
the order of the lines right.
Oh, well.
|9.24.05 @ 7:06PM|#
Translated from the original French, that reads "Oh, running
away are you? Come back, I'll bite your legs off!"
The most brilliant and beautiful use of a Monty Python reference
I've ever seen here.
Phil|9.24.05 @ 8:11PM|#
The school, I believe, sees that by admitting this child
they are implicitly condoning couple's lifstyle.
How on earth can this possibly be so? How is allowing the child to
be educated in the school condoning how the parents live?
|9.24.05 @ 8:51PM|#
Sins of the Mothers? How about the society?
Targeting these two individuals seems a bit arbitrary to me. We all
need to get the ground rules straight on issues like this so people
know where they stand. In the meantime ... no lynchings!
|9.24.05 @ 11:40PM|#
It's a Christian school.
Christians are against homosexuality.
Therefore, the Christian school is against admitting children whose
parents are homosexual.
Any questions?
Yes. In the same passage from which this alleged opposition to
homosexuality is derived, God commands Lot to fuck his daughters,
which he does (after getting drunk). Does that mean Christians are
in favor of drunken incest?
Wait, let me guess.
|9.25.05 @ 12:52AM|#
Oh, and as far as "fundamentalist" Christians go: fine, be
that way, pursue a return to the true faith of the Apostles. But if
you aren't donating all of your property to be held in common
ownership among the members of your church, you aren't a
fundamentalist. You're just old fashioned
"Fundamentalist" isn't usually a self-applied term, so it is
unreasonable to insist that fundamentalists adhere to the
implications of the label.
Most fundamentalists, in my experience, just call themselves
"Christians".
|9.25.05 @ 1:19AM|#
Yes. In the same passage from which this alleged opposition
to homosexuality is derived, God commands Lot to fuck his
daughters, which he does (after getting drunk).
You're confused. Christian opposition to homosexuality isn't based
on the Genesis story of Sodom and Gommorrah; it is based on
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which state that male homosexuality is
an abomination and that men who have sex with each other must be
put to death.
Also, God didn't command Lot to "fuck his daughters". Lot's
daughters came up with the plan (Genesis 19:31-32):
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and
there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner
of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we
will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our
father.
Christianity may be silly an contradictory, but that's no excuse
for not familiarizing yourself with the literature before you
criticize it.
|9.25.05 @ 3:35AM|#
Other issues aside, if the attitude of the school is strongly anti-gay, then it's probably far preferable they just expel the kid (like they did) to get an education elsewhere, rather than continue to keep the kid in an environment where the authority figures and far worse the peer group are strongly anti-gay (can you imagine what internal conflicts that kid would have?).
Phil|9.25.05 @ 9:37AM|#
"Fundamentalist" isn't usually a self-applied term, so it is
unreasonable to insist that fundamentalists adhere to the
implications of the label.
Um, it is to the extent that the churches and groups usually
described so can trace their dogma and practices back to the
publishing of, and growth stemming from, the publishing of The
Fundamentals back in the early part of the 20th century.
It isn't just a phrase that their critics made up.
|9.25.05 @ 12:32PM|#
Totally off-topic, but I was looking through the
archives...
Someone has an interesting hobby.
|9.25.05 @ 2:05PM|#
Twba-
I said something nostalgic about Mona. Somebody else challenged me
on whether she was really such a great commenter. So I googled for
old threads with her and stumbled across the post in
question.
My conclusion, incidentally, is that Mona was indeed an asset to
the forum.
|9.25.05 @ 3:22PM|#
Um, it is to the extent that the churches and groups usually
described so can trace their dogma and practices back to the
publishing of, and growth stemming from, the publishing of The
Fundamentals back in the early part of the 20th century.
Of course, to the extent that that is true, joe's claim that they
call themselves "fundamentalists" because they want to be like the
early church is still false. Fundamentalism is about returning to
Christ's original teachings (or their perception of them, anyway),
not about returning to how people did things a few generations
after Jesus died.
It isn't just a phrase that their critics made up.
I didn't say their critics made it up, I said it wasn't usually a
self-applied term. I grew up around a lot of fundamentalists --
Southern Baptists and Pentacostals, mainly -- and I don't think I
ever heard any of them call themselves that. They just called
themselves Christians, and said they were following Christ's
teachings; the first I ever heard of "The Fundamentals" was in a
college history class.
|9.25.05 @ 4:13PM|#
I do not see what educating the child has to do with being homosexual. You would think they would jump at the opportunity to expose the child to their way of thinking.
|9.25.05 @ 5:30PM|#
"How is allowing the child to be educated in the school
condoning how the parents live?"-Phil
The people raising a student are going to be participating in
school events and functions. The other students in the school are
going to be interacting with the lesbian couple. The thought
process I believe goes like this: how can we remain true to our
belief that homosexual relationships are sinful and teach that to
the students while we have a homosexual couple apparently in good
standing sending a child to our school?
From what I can see the school administrators are trying to avoid
being hypocritical, not punish the child and not even punish the
couple. I thought hypocrisy was the most mortal sin in Reasonoid
land. I guess that's only true when the hyprocrite stands for
something you do not approve of.
|9.25.05 @ 6:12PM|#
"I thought hypocrisy was the most mortal sin in Reasonoid
land. I guess that's only true when the hyprocrite stands for
something you do not approve of."
I don't know about Reasonoid land--while they seem to expect a
certain amount of internal consistency, I think Reasonids can be a
pretty pragmatic bunch.
...but I've always interpreted "Thou shall not take the Lord's name
in vain." as a commandment against hypocrisy.
...The people of Christian Land were once known for taking those
commandments pretty seriously. I know there are a lot of cultural
Christians who don't take the teachings of Jesus seriously at all
yet insist on nailing the Ten Commandments up in every public space
where they aren't allowed.
Do you think people like that are a relatively new phenomenon? ...I
guess there were a lot of slave holders way back when that were
like that. ...and I suppose a lot of Klan activity was based on
that kind of thing. ...I suppose people like that will always be
with us.
|9.25.05 @ 7:58PM|#
I'd be suprised if the school receives any state funding. California appears to have a strict Blaine Amendment
|9.25.05 @ 8:44PM|#
"From the article:
The Republican-led House approved a bill that lets churches and
other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share
their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars
Does this qualify as outrageous?"
No, not really. That government forces people to give their money
to pay for a education, and then dictates how the education will
go, against what the parents want is outrageous.
That I dissagree when told how the money is spent is merely
annoying, after the first fact.
|9.25.05 @ 8:50PM|#
DB,
I didn't know about the sisters sleeping with their dad. That is a
weird story. What is the moral of that one?
Also, the bible calls for the execution of gay men? Strangely
enough, the Koran does also. The Koran mandates death by stoning.
Is the bible specific about method of execution?
Well I guess it is not that weird about the similarities. I was
told by a very Jewish friend of mine that the model of Islam was
created and fed to Mohammed by his baby sitter, or aunt, who was a
Christian.
I mean I am not saying that is true, just that it is one
explanation. On the other hand maybe there is a good reason why God
reiterated the need to kill gay men.
|9.25.05 @ 8:58PM|#
Hak,
You have to at least consider the chance that Jesus, and to some
extent Mohammed and Moses, knew stuff that most people didn't back
then.
And that they had figured out stuff that even today we haven't
figured out.
They did seem to pull of some impressive magic tricks. And there
were a bunch of guys doing smoke and mirror type magic tricks, and
Moses blew them all away.
Also,
with regard to your comments about Christians being the enemies of
liberty. Remember Jefferson and his buddies who started this
country?
Don't you think that Libertarianism itself might be a product of
Christian thinking?
|9.25.05 @ 10:27PM|#
Also, with regard to your comments about Christians being
the enemies of liberty. Remember Jefferson and his buddies who
started this country?
kwais-
The religious convictions of the Founders is a complicated matter
that I've discussed with a friend of mine who's writing his
dissertation on American history (focusing on the era of the
Founding). He's in Philadelphia right now, looking through a lot of
old archives to study original documents. I once made the mistake
of saying in front of him that the Founders were deists. He took me
to the woodshed for making such a blanket statement:
1) First and foremost, the Founders were a large and diverse group
of people with strong and varying opinions. You can't really
ascribe a uniform religious belief to a large and diverse group of
opinionated people.
2) Most of them were indeed at least nominally Christian, in that
most (all?) were on a roster somewhere as registered members in
various churches. Yet many of them also expressed opinions that
could be construed as Deist or even downright atheist. Even more
difficult, as thoughtful men but also skilled politicians who wrote
a lot during their lifetimes, one can probably find all sorts of
statements that are either contradictory or seem contradictory
without context (for an example of the "flip flop effect" see:
Kerry, John).
One can debate how significant it is that their names were on
church membership rosters. My friend attributes considerable
significance to it in many of those cases. Of course, as a good
scholar, he's careful not to make broad statements that he can't
support, but he certainly attributes significance to evidence of
their religious involvement. But most of his research doesn't focus
on the really big names, whose lives have already been the subject
of countless dissertations. He's interested in other people around
then and what they were up to, to get insight into the broader
society that the big names existed in.
Now, I know that at least one person here could, if he wants to,
probably make short work of my friend's work, or at least my
synopsis of it. And it's quite possible that my friend hasn't read
as many books and articles as some people here have read. But at
some point a good scholar has to stop reading about what is already
known and start delving into uncharted territory. And my friend has
done a lot of that. He's analyzed all sorts of things that nobody
has analyzed before. Recalling lots of facts is important, but
finding new things is also important. And while a prodigious set of
references to previous work is nice, analysis and logical deduction
also has its place. Google can recall more facts than I will ever
know. But I can find new facts and analyze them to form a
picture.
|9.25.05 @ 11:23PM|#
"On the other hand maybe there is a good reason why God
reiterated the need to kill gay men."
population building.
it makes more sense for an isolated group, in that if you're
surrounded, you need to make babies asap. you need women to breed
soldiers and good upright men to impregnant those women, etc etc
and so forth.
the gay gets in the way of the baby.
i'm sure someone else has another theory.
|9.25.05 @ 11:28PM|#
joe,
A "Fundamentalist Catholic" would either reject the changes in
doctrine and practice that have come about through tradition and
Vatican teaching...
I've already addressed this issue - twice. See my comments above.
Quit trying to conflate one variety of Christian fundamentalism
with all varities of Christian fundamentalism. The issue is not the
content of the particular fundamentalism after all, how a sect
self-identifies, or the "popular" understanding of the term.
Fundamentalism is exactly what I have stated that it is:
a system of thought concerned with returning to and/or
maintaining what the adherents consider the foundational principles
of the religion in question.
Apparently a university education was wasted on you.
You can call yourself a "Fundamentalist Catholic," and base
your beliefs and practices around those of the early
Church...
Or you can be one and base your beliefs and practices around some
other particular historical period, such as the period where an
understanding grew in the Church that the Pope's
religious-philosophical positions were infallible. The
periodization is not the issue. Fundamentalism is an issue of
behavior, not periodization. Now I expect you to continue to argue
that it is important, just like you argued that you got all the
prongs to the Lemon test (which you didn't) and that
Penn Coal didn't articulate a test for regulatory takings
(it actually does). It would be helpful if some day you actually
discussed some issues that you knew something about.
kwais,
You have to at least consider the chance that Jesus, and to
some extent Mohammed and Moses, knew stuff that most people didn't
back then.
Well, there is no evidence that a Moses character actually ever
existed (and certainly no evidence that there was a exodus of Jews
from Egypt either). Here they are, tens of thousands of people
wandering a very small patch of the Earth for forty years and they
leave no evidence that they actually were ever there. And this
despite decades and decades of effort.
Second, Mohammed knew how to kill Jews certainly and commit acts of
barbarous iconoclasm as well.
Third, what we know of Jesus comes largely from individuals who
never met the man (since Paul never met him and most of the works
of the other "authors" of the NT were written well after those
authors' were dead). Then there is the whole NT written by
committee issue. I mean really, who is to say that the Gnostic
Gospels are any less authoritative than the supposedly canonical
ones?
They did seem to pull of some impressive magic
tricks.
It isn't claimed that Mohammed performed any magic (that I know
of). Yes, the Bible claims that they did some magic, but that leads
us back to my original point - why is this claim authoritative and
the claim that Isis raised Osiris from the dead to fuck and this
have Horus not?
And there were a bunch of guys doing smoke and mirror type
magic tricks, and Moses blew them all away.
This assumes that the OT is actually truthful in its retelling of
the tale (or that the event actually happened). Indeed, there is no
more reason to believe that Moses existed than that Hercules
did.
Remember Jefferson and his buddies who started this
country?
Jefferson opposed numerous types of liberty (that he would have
liked - at one point in his life - to strictly regulate the growth
of cities and industry in the U.S. is well known); he was in fact a
slave holder. My goodness, you'd think you'd at least have picked
Washington, who had enough of a conscience to free his slaves upon
death (and that of his wife on her death). Of course we also have
other figures like Adams who wanted to turn the U.S. into his
vision of a virtuous state with a virtuous people via all manner of
intrusive sumptuary, etc. laws.
Don't you think that Libertarianism itself might be a product
of Christian thinking?
No, not really.
thoreau,
Most of them were more or less entangled with the Enlightenment.
They were in general more open to a diversity of religious,
philosophical, etc. ideas than later generations were (though some
New Englanders from Calvinist stock tended to buck this trend -
that this would eventually lead to Calvinism imploding and casting
off much of its membership into Unitarianism, etc. had to wait
until the 19th century).
|9.25.05 @ 11:40PM|#
kwais,
BTW, I never singled out Christianity (which is what you imply). My
comments have been about religion (since they were in response to
Jose (aka, the wannabe Heidegger)'s statement about religion).
Everyone always assumes that term refers to whatever particular
religion they are part of I suppose.
|9.25.05 @ 11:46PM|#
DB,
Fundamentalism is about returning to Christ's original
teachings (or their perception of them, anyway), not about
returning to how people did things a few generations after Jesus
died.
No, fundamentalism is about the behavior of individuals and/or
groups; the foundational principles, period, etc. really aren't
that important. What is important is that they argue that they are
returning to something foundational, primary, essential, etc., not
what that foundation may be in particular.
|9.26.05 @ 12:47AM|#
Hakluyt,
I don't get the Heidegger joke. It's probably a reference to
another book that I haven't read. (I did get the Monty Pithon
reference from both you and Joe)
"there is no more reason to believe that Moses existed than that
Hercules did."
Hercules didn't exist either? WTF? Are you sure? Or are you just
doubting everything that you don't have pictures of?
So what do you think that Jesus, and Mohammed were just men that
people wanted to follow for no good reason? And that Moses was a
fairy tale?
Also, I know that you, as a militant atheist think that all people
who believe are supersticous idiots. Not just Christians. But it
was a particular mention of your about Christians that made me make
the comment that I made. (I don't really want to cut and paste it
all, but I think you follow.)
Anyhow whatever the human flaws of the founders, the founded the
US. Pretty good by comparison of what else is out there.
Perhaps Christianity is a middle step of evolution toward freedom
that involves everybody being an atheist of some sort. But it is
the step that led to this.
|9.26.05 @ 2:18AM|#
kwais,
Jose Ortega y Gasset (the real one) was an avid follower of
Hedegger and not too terribly an original thinker because of this;
thus I've always called him a "wannabe Heidegger."
Hercules didn't exist either? WTF? Are you sure? Or are you
just doubting everything that you don't have pictures
of?
If you think that the idea that Hercules existed is a plausible one
you've got some problems.
So what do you think that Jesus, and Mohammed were just men
that people wanted to follow for no good reason?
Well, almost all of the people who came to follow these guys never
met them. Second, lots of modern people follow charismatic freaks
like Jim Jones, Moon, the Bagwhan, David Koresh, etc. and claim
that they have magical, spiritual, etc. powers. I don't see why I
should give ancient world freaks any more credance than I give
modern world ones.
And that Moses was a fairy tale?
Well, you have to accept the fact that there is absolutely no
evidence (outside what the biblical text) for the existance of
Moses, an exodus, etc. despite the efforts of a heck of a lot of
people to find evidence of such. When confronted with such it
should give one pause to consider whether this story is any more
real than that of Athena "helping" Perseus defeat the Gorgon (or
Perseus getting magical boots from some nymphs for that
matter).
...a militant atheist...
Heh. I won't be cowed by a bunch of religionists.
...think that all people who believe are supersticous [sic]
idiots.
Well, at least in that area of their lives.
But it was a particular mention of your about Christians that
made me make the comment that I made.
I don't believe I ever used it (in this thread) in the context that
you mean.
I don't really have a response to your baseless historical
musings.
|9.26.05 @ 2:29AM|#
A bit of a threadjack, but for those you who think that ID is
non-religious in nature, check out Fred Hutchison linking ID with
homosexuality:
http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050915hutchison.htm
The idea that man has an innate nature flows naturally into the
idea that there must be a design behind that nature. If man is
designed, marriage must also be designed. Homosexuality is contrary
to that design. This is an essential point that conservatives must
make in the debate about gay marriage.
...
The mission of conservatives at this point in history is to
develop a life-style, philosophy, and worldview of intelligent
design. Every issue in the culture war hinges upon the question of
whether man has an innate nature and whether that nature has a
design from the Creator.
Individual lives and families committed to their true nature
and destiny is the foundation for the renewal of the community, the
culture, and the nation. Communities of design can win the culture
war, with God�s help, and steer America towards her glorious
destiny as planned in the counsels of eternity.
...
__________________
Need one ask why this sounds like Dominion theology?
|9.26.05 @ 3:21AM|#
I didn't know about the sisters sleeping with their dad.
That is a weird story. What is the moral of that one?
I guess you could say the moral of the story is "the Moabites and
Ammonites are descended from the offspring of incest, isn't that
disgusting?". The Old Testament was written by many different
authors, and all of them had their little axes to grind. That's why
almost everyone in the Old Testament has stories throwing dirt on
their name. Probably the author of the Lot-incest story disliked
the Moabites and Ammonites for some reason.
The Koran mandates death by stoning. Is the bible specific
about method of execution?
The Hebrews used stoning, too. But the New Testament is generally
read as overruling the old execution requirement on the grounds
that humans were unworthy to punish others humans for their sins
(the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
thing).
|9.26.05 @ 3:30AM|#
Here they are, tens of thousands of people wandering a very
small patch of the Earth for forty years and they leave no evidence
that they actually were ever there.
Not that I believe the story, but there's nothing unusual about
being unable to find solid evidence that a specific group of
city-less, civilization-less nomads lived in an area, for a couple
of decades, three or four thousand years ago. There are entire
*civilizations* from that era that have virtually vanished without
a trace, cities and all. It would be easy to miss the remnants of a
few tens of thousands of people who didn't build any permanent
structures. or to fail to correctly identify those remnants if you
did find them.
|9.26.05 @ 3:43AM|#
Hey, Kwias is back. Welcome back Kwais.
The Qu'ran was heavily influenced by both the Torah and the Bible.
Whether this is a result of one true god who gave another book to
build on what came before or the work of a shepherd who picked up
Christianity and Judaism by osmosis and then conflated them with
Arabian mythology to create something new is anybody's guess.
Personally I've seen far too much weird shit to be able to just
dismiss any of those three religions out of hand.
The shared sources are also why the punishments are similar, if
not, as in many cases, exactly the same. Christians and Jews also
get a free pass into heaven and their priests and various ministers
are supposedly on more or less equal footing with Imams in the eyes
of Allah. Frankly, sometimes I'm surprised there hasn't been more
of a drive to unify the three. But then, maybe I've read too much
Dune for my own good;)
As for Lot, there was no moral. That was the great thing about God
Classsic; sometimes he just liked to dick around with people. Lot
was supposedly very embarassed when he realized that he knocked up
his daughters; I can very easily see including that story as a way
of delivering a great big fuck you to Lot for all eternity. Sort of
like how your parents might like to keep around those photos of you
doing hideously embarassing stuff when you were too young to know
better to make sure that you're not too uppity before you bring the
future spouse home.
|9.26.05 @ 3:47AM|#
Reading what came between, you should probably listen to DB with
regards to the whole Lot story. Not that my info is any worse as
such, but his tongue doesn't seem to be lodged so firmly in his
cheek. Plus his reasons don't depend on a celestial jerk in the sky
wanting to play tricks on his descendants for all eternity.
Bet you didn't know God was like one of those jocks in High School,
didja?;)
|9.26.05 @ 4:29AM|#
Why are a lot of people (thoreau, joe, Jose, et al) so keen to engage that Hak-Bart-Gunnels bugaboo in a debate when it is so obvious that said person is a very unpleasant character and that it is next to impossible to have a meaningful discussion with this sort of bossy lout?
Phil|9.26.05 @ 6:08AM|#
so,
with regard to your comments about Christians being the enemies of
liberty. Remember Jefferson and his buddies who started this
country?
Is that the same Jefferson who re-wrote the New Testament to take
out all the supposed "miracles" because he thought they were a
bunch of crap?
|9.26.05 @ 6:24AM|#
It might be that Hak is actually a pretty knowledgeable guy, and
therefore an interesting challenge to tangle with, and also tosses
out Interesting Facts along with the insults.
I generally don't tangle with him, though -- I just don't have that
much energy. Besides, the man can fight like a giraffe! (thoreau
isn't the only one who pokes around in the archives
sometimes.)
Although I do have to say that joe's Pythonian response to "and so
joe fled" was a pretty damn good riposte.
Bet you didn't know God was like one of those jocks in High
School, didja?;)
That's an interesting take. So drowning the Egyptian soldiers
pursuing Moses across the split Reed Sea was actually a kind of
giant swirly?
And the 40 years wandering in the desert, sort of a game of
keep-away?
So from now on my mental image of God (wrong as I know it may be, I
can't help but be anthropomorphic) will flicker between a giant
older version of Jesus with white hair and beard, and a giant
Emilio Estevez from "The Breakfast Club" wearing a letterman's
jacket with YHWH on it. Thank you very much.
|9.26.05 @ 6:25AM|#
Oops, my last post was a response to "just curious" and Shem, mostly. Didn't expect Phil to come between. Don't you people ever sleep?
|9.26.05 @ 7:50AM|#
Considering the original topic of this thread, this hardcore atheist wonders what Hak is hoping to accomplish by insulting those believers who oppose the bigotry of this Christian school.
|9.26.05 @ 8:22AM|#
I like debating him because he does have a lot of interesting stuff to say. But lately he's becoming harder to debate with and easier to argue with, if you know what I mean. I may soon have to refrain from engaging him until he cools down again.
|9.26.05 @ 8:34AM|#
Thoreau--
Perhaps he figured the thread would unravel like this:
HAK: You're stupid.
THOREAU: Good God, you're right! You know, all this time I've read
about various scientific theories which might cast doubt upon
certain aspects of my faith, yet it never was sufficient to make me
jump to the "unbeliever" side of the fence. But the reason it
didn't is because nobody's ever gone so far as to utter the magic
words "You're stupid." But now that somebody has, everything is
different.
JOE: I concur. Being told "you're stupid" was exactly the catalyst
necessary for me to make the switch away from my faith.
JENNIFER: (inhales) Y'know, guys, when I lost
my faith I found that interstate commerce helped me
through the rough part of the transition. You want some? It's
way better than incense.
|9.26.05 @ 8:39AM|#
Jennifer-
The Coptic Christians find that interstate commerce actually
enhances the spiritual experience. Perhaps you might yet find a
home in the Christian church? :->
Anyway, your question to him was a good one: What exactly is the
point of berating believers who think that the school's decision
was ridiculous?
I suggest that Hakluyt take a deep breath, relax, and get back to
debating rather than berating, before he embarasses himself any
further.
|9.26.05 @ 8:44AM|#
The whole Croesus/Bart/Gunnels/Hak persona seems to depend on
whether he's taken his medication or something.
He's sometimes a pretty learned and informative guy. But mostly
he's a fucking obnoxious, insulting knowitall.
|9.26.05 @ 8:48AM|#
Hakluyt, I guess what we're trying to say is that the next time they ban you we won't shed any tears. Last time around I found myself saying "man, I miss Gary Gunnels." Then you came back and for a while I enjoyed it. But lately the signal-to-insult ratio is decreasing again. Find a way to fix that so we can continue to enjoy your presence.
|9.26.05 @ 9:20AM|#
I think Gary Gunnels is actually Larry Groznic, columnist for
The Onion. Here's an excerpt from the column "When you are
ready to have a serious conversation about Green Lantern, you have
my e-mail address;" tell me these aren't written by the
same guy:
So long as you insist on clinging to your, quite frankly, bizarre
opinions on the Emerald Knight's 60-plus-year history, it is not
worth my time to engage you in purposeless noisemaking. Rather than
become agitated, as I've allowed you to make me in the past, I will
simply serve notice that I will not entertain any future Green
Lantern discussions with you until you have come to a more mature
place in your development as a fan. . . . I find particularly
laughable your na�ve conviction that Hal's vulnerability to the
color yellow damages the comic's storyline rather than adding
excitement. Are you intentionally trying to miss the point with
comments like, "You would just have to shoot him with a yellow
bullet"? . . . .Think creatively, Douglas, or at least consult the
Silver Age issues.
The only thing missing is the ending "before you embarrass yourself
further."
|9.26.05 @ 9:30AM|#
Perhaps, Larry Groznic is really Gary T. Gunnels. Thoreau is so much more efficient than I, he will have combed the archives for clues before I have even begun to look like I'm working.
|9.26.05 @ 9:40AM|#
"I guess you could say the moral of the story is "the
Moabites and Ammonites are descended from the offspring of incest,
isn't that disgusting?". The Old Testament was written by many
different authors, and all of them had their little axes to
grind."
I recently studied Zoroastrianism, and I learned some rather
striking things.
The Old Testament was codified under what most people recognize as
the "Persians", a Zoroastrian empire. The professor in the this
class suggested that because of the profound influence
Zoroastrianism had on the Old Testament's compilers, Judaism has
been described as a reform of Zoroastrianism in the same way that
Christianity and Islam can be described as reforms of Judaism.
...From purity laws to the idea of a messiah to monotheism, the
similarities are striking.
...consider the praise heaped on Darius in the Old Testament--and
consider the sort of praise he gets--it's almost written like a
Zoroastrian prayer. Consider how well the Jewish people were faring
under the "Persians" in the book of Esther.
...Zoroastrianism in the ancient world had two striking
characteristics. They exposed their dead rather than burned
them--fire being too sacred a substance to pollute with a dead
body--and they practiced next of kin marriage. The effects of these
cultural practices on "Antigone" and "Oedipus Rex" are rarely
overstated--but, then again, those factors are hardly ever
mentioned.
...The point is that I think we should consider that the story of
Lot was codified by scholars living in a society in which next of
kin marriages were considered holy--for want of a better term--and
commonplace. That is to say, incest isn't a universal evil, and it
wasn't an evil within the society and culture within which the Old
Testament was, if not written, edited and given form.
|9.26.05 @ 9:40AM|#
Gary or Larry?
Those who know me either by reputation or through IRC know that
I do not suffer fools gladly. If you have been on the business end
of one of my notorious outbursts of Internet anger, I do
sympathize. And, for what is to come forthwith, I offer you my grim
condolence. En garde.
(answer: Larry. Gary would never include the words "I do
sympathize.")
|9.26.05 @ 9:51AM|#
Off topic,
...Talk about a controversial class!
I took this class at UCLA. As you may know, there are a lot of
Persians who fled the Iranian Revolution in Westwood, and, as you
can guess, there were a lot of Zoroastrians among them. (They
probably didn't expect to fare well under the Ayatollah.) Anyway,
that meant that there were a lot of practicing Zoroastrians in the
class.
The class was controversial anyway--just as any class on the
history and culture of Islam or Christianity would be in an
academic setting with a lot of faithful among the students. ...But
in this class, I actually witnessed a professor dutifully explain
and defend the fact that half of the students in the class were the
product of multi-generational inbreeding!
|9.26.05 @ 10:04AM|#
Hak, writing "I addressed that twice" doesn't get you out from
the fact that you completely failed to respond to my central thesis
twice.
And your assertion that the fundamentalist project is completely
divorced form periodization is horseshit.
|9.26.05 @ 10:06AM|#
Tom--
I've read a little about Zoroastrianism and the ancient Persians.
Sad and funny, to think that if the ancient Persian Empire han't
been destroyed, the age of enlightenment might have come two
millenia or so earlier. And especially sad to think that one of the
first large empires to have some respect for human rights was in
what is now Iran.
|9.26.05 @ 10:16AM|#
I recently added a few books on Zoroastrianism to my Amazon
wishlist.
Not many wishlists include Zoroastrianism, biophysics, and 2 Live
Crew.
|9.26.05 @ 10:44AM|#
It seems I have missed the fireworks.
I have always translated the libertarian aversion to "pandering" as
something more like, "It is more important to be an insufferable
prick than to influence public policy."
Like Thoreau, I have pretty much given up hope that devout
libertarians will get anything done in American politics. Politics
is the art of building consensus and finding common ground...
beating someone in the head with a stick is a different art
entirely. People often like libertarian ideas. They just dislike
libertarians, usually for good reason.
To the extent religious belief is private, what concern is it of
any other person? If my neighbor wants to believe that God is a
cherry red 1964 Chevy Impala convertible with white leather
interior... what does it matter? What exactly does theological ball
busting accomplish? Sure, Hak has free speech just like Thoreau has
freedom of religion. Hak's criticism of religious is about as
likely of producing a measureable outcome as Thoreau saying the
rosary... so explain to me which behavior is more or less
rational?
|9.26.05 @ 1:58PM|#
This is a threadjack!
Put your hands up!
Ok, now turn around in a circle two times.
Put your right leg in.....
No, really. Anyone who is interested in meeting up for
alcohol-related socializations (alcohol not required, but
preferred) on the weekend of October 15th in Washington DC, email
me! My email address is real if you take out the "nospam." part. I
have two evenings in mind for a get-together. Email me for details,
even if you're only non-committedly interested at this point. We
can decide between the two or so dates I have in mind, and then
decide on a time/place.
|9.26.05 @ 2:06PM|#
Hmm.
-----------------
Although it may come as news to you, there is a long tradition of
sequential artworks in celebration of the human love-act. The works
in my collection are borne out of this tradition, and exist far
afield from the base pornography you referred to in your posting of
Tuesday.... Do you honestly compare the masterful line drawings of
Milo Manara's Butterscotch series to the pandering output of Wicked
Pictures or Larry Flynt Publications? ...
Manara -- not that you would be aware of this -- is famed
throughout the Continent, though sadly unappreciated on these
shores, thanks to the ignorance of philistines like yourself. Are
you familiar with Manara's collaborations with a certain Federico
Fellini, a man who is seen in Italy as a filmmaker on par with our
Lucas?
For your information, Grygor, breathtaking depictions of the female
form are considered high art in Europe. But I'm willing to bet that
Europe's finest comics lie entirely outside of your realm of
knowledge, even though you call yourself a fan of "the ninth art."
(The French rank comics equally among the other arts -- ballet,
opera, and the like. Comic artists there enjoy a level of respect
that is, in this country, bestowed only upon such universally
regarded masters as Rob Liefeld, Todd McFarlane, and Alex
Ross.)
But your familiarity with comics is so limited, you couldn't
identify Aquaman's wife without recourse to the Justice League
FAQ!
-- "I'll Thank You Not to Refer to My Sequential-Art Collection as
'Erotica'"
----------------------
Hmmm.
|9.26.05 @ 2:57PM|#
Jennifer-that exchange between Hak, Joe and Thoreau read like
one of Ayn Rand's later novels. Have you ever considered being a
cult leader/novelist? I'd join. Being in on the ground floor of a
cult would be kind of neat, actually.
Although I'd probably wind up getting kicked out and writing a
tell-all book about my experiences. Just giving fair warning...
|9.26.05 @ 2:59PM|#
Jennifer-
Are you sure?
Larry Groznic is a noted fan-community luminary and sought-after expert on the topics of British television, spy-fi memorabilia, cosplay, RPG adventuring, and limited-edition collectible maquettes. He lives in Cedar Rapids, IA, and is single.
Our guy lives in either Vermont, New Hampshire, France, or North
Carolina. And he hasn't said much about role-playing games.
Besides, he's married!
|9.26.05 @ 3:55PM|#
Joe (aka, the wannabe Heidegger),
What exactly does theological ball busting
accomplish?
Because being vigilant about religion is important.
Jennifer,
Actually, I do sympathize. Also, Green Lantern was one of my
favorite comics as a kid, but I imagine that is true of a lot of
people. Was this fellow fond of Moby Dick and the
Odyssey as a kid as a well? :)
joe,
I didn't fail to respond. I can lead you to water, but I can't make
you drink apparently.
And your assertion that the fundamentalist project is
completely divorced form periodization is horseshit.
Oh yes, that's really authoritative. :)
thoreau,
I can't say that I know much about RPG or any of the other items
listed. I do like some British television; for example, Waiting
for God, Black Adder, Fawlty Towers,
Rumpole of the Baily, etc., as well as short-run series
like The Flame Trees of Thika and Island at War.
I can't say that makes me an expert on British television
though.
|9.26.05 @ 3:58PM|#
Thoreau, Thoreau, you adorably trusting fool. I suggest you
learn how easily one can invent an Internet persona before you
embarrass yourself further.
Shem, if I could figure out a way to make my little Thoreau-Hak-me
exchange stretch out for 80 pages I would
|9.26.05 @ 5:40PM|#
Before the server broke down again, I was going to say that, as
a discerning connoisseur, I found the 2005 Groznic to have an
almost lyrical floral finish, while the Hakluyt of the same vintage
was more dry and acidic. :)
Now I hit "Post" and pray. (Theist!)
|9.27.05 @ 4:52AM|#
I can't say that I know much about RPG...
I'm sure you would be quite good at creating a character that
fights harder than a bulldog.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245