Faith-Based Aid Is Unconstitutional, Period

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
THE SECULARIST HAVE NO FAITH

IRT:
“There is no reason to expect the Roman Catholic Church to sponsor pregnancy counseling programs that advise girls about contraception and abortion rights.”

ANS;
“Yes, the Secularist couldn’t have sexual abstinence taught in high school even though Abstinence has been proven a very effective program; however, it is perfectly permissible force kindergarteners, as done in California, to be taught the fruits of homosexuality.

Using funds for Abstinence infringes on the funds for teaching gay that you can be a Homosexual, and if your contraceptives fail, you can get a free abortion without your parents knowing.

Moreover, Abstinence might cut down on “out-of-wedlock pregnancies“, and cause Planned Parenthood to shut down their aboratoriums placed in poor and Black areas.

The secular UN went to the Tsunami victims and raped the young children. Long after the UN left, Catholic Charities was there helping the poor and unfortunate.

According to C-Span, on "Homosexual Disinformation," May 22-23, 1993, much of the homosexual propaganda disguised as sex education in our schools is actually indoctrination of the nation's children. For the same publisher who provides the two well publicized books used for kindergarten kids to advocate homosexual or lesbian parents, "Daddy's Roommate" and "Heather Has Two Mommies," they also publishes "Men Loving Men," - a book containing seven precautionary steps men may take in order to prevent being caught while molesting a child.

Current Court records reveal that 1/3 of all child abusers are homosexuals. Since the total homosexual population is statistically, not more than 1- 1/2 to 2- 1/2 percent of the population, this means that homosexuals are sixteen (16) times more likely to abuse children than are heterosexuals.

The ACLU,one of the protestors, fostered the suit against Abstinence promptly defend NAMBLA, a group which advocates illegal sex between men and boys, and whose well publicized slogan is "sex before eight, or it's too late," against the lawsuit brought by the parents of the murdered 10 year old, as they (ACLU) believed NAMBLA's "important" First Amendment rights issues were at stake..."

Have the rights of perverse criminals within our society to lust after and sexually molest children, now taken precedent over the right of the remainder of society, especially our children, to a state of safety and well-being? Have the government, the media, organizations and others in positions of power and influence no concern for the public’s right to decency or for the protection of their children?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
GAY SEX

IRT
There is no reason to expect right-wing churches dedicated to the proposition that homosexuals are going to hell to hire someone who supports gay rights for an AIDS-prevention program.

ANS:
Here is more propaganda from the uninformed antagonists on the left. No Catholics aren’t stupid. They’re not going to tell gays and little children a lie, viz. that gay sex isn’t a variation of Russian Roulette.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_in_Africa#East-central_Africa

“Catholic Charities DREAM (short for "Drug Resources Enhancement against Aids and Malnutrition has proven to be an efficient means of giving access to free ARV treatment with generic HAART drugs to the poor on a large scale. So far, 5,000 people are receiving ARV treatment.

http://dream.santegidio.org/homep.asp?Curlang=EN

“The clinic is run by the Italian Catholic charity, Santo Egidio, and treats 2,500 patients, among them 100 inmates from the local jail.

“The FREE, program . . . Is linked with a nutrition program, guidance, and sanitary education by volunteers (and other HIV patients). Today Dream has saved the lives of some 20,000 AIDS victims.”

“Two million people in Africa are getting drug therapies for AIDS as part of the DREAM project. Twelve laboratories already exist in eight different African countries.” Are Catholics brainwashed? Do they hate gays or the sin? Ask Dream, one of the many religious programs for AIDS victims. They love man. The real hate is to succor a tragic evil that kills the victims the Secularist claim to care for.

Maybe we could get the ACLU and the Gay s and Abortionist to kick out the stupid Catholic volunteers who are using all our government's money that Bush allocated to the Dream Program. It was more than $30 million helping AIDS and HIV families in strife laden South Africa. We could use that money to teach little children how to be gay as is being done in California.

SO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS NEED NOT APPLY?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_in_Africa#East-central_Africa

“Catholic Charities DREAM (short for "Drug Resources Enhancement against Aids and Malnutrition has proven to be an efficient means of giving access to free ARV treatment with generic HAART drugs to the poor on a large scale. So far, 5,000 people are receiving ARV treatment.

http://dream.santegidio.org/homep.asp?Curlang=EN

“The clinic is run by the Italian Catholic charity, Santo Egidio, and treats 2,500 patients, among them 100 inmates from the local jail.

“The FREE, program . . .is linked with a nutrition program, guidance, and sanitary education by volunteers ( and other HIV patients). Today Dream has saved the lives of some 20,000 AIDS victims.”

“Two million people in Africa are getting drug therapies for AIDS as part of the DREAM project.

Twelve laboratories already exist in eight different African countries.” Are Catholics brainwashed? Do they hate gays or the sin? Ask Dream, one of the many religious programs for AIDS victims. They love man. The real hate is to succor a tragic evil that kills the victims the Secularist claim to care for.

http://dream.santegidio.org/homep.asp?Curlang=EN

Maybe we could get the ACLU and the Gay s and Abortionist to kick out the Catholic volunteers who are using all our government's money Bush, more than $30 million helping AIDS and HIV families in strife laden South Africa.

How many of these protestors are over in Africa treating these poor people for nothing? How many for the "Separation of Church and State" are doing this kind of work? And should there be gay liberation advocates telling these victims that they have every right to be gay and should be?

What profound priggery!

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH
POSTED SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 4:15 PM

IRT:
“Uh...yeah... how i long for the days "sex scandals" in the white house. they seem so "quaint" compared to recklessly invading iraq on false pretenses while abandoning Afghanistan...(where those who attacked us are...)”

ANS:
Wrong, show that the troops were reduced. Gen. Tommy Franks said that was false.. The Taliban and al Qaeda and bin Laden were in Afghanistan till they fled to Pakistan and Iraq.

Ayman Zawahiri Deputy to bin Laden’s High echelon fled to Iraq after he was wounded. Terrorist training camps were in Iraq. Saddam was paying $25.000 to terrorist families for their family supplying human suicide bombers. Saddam broke 17 UN resolutions over ten years with no reprisals. Saddam threw the inspectors out.

“Of the al Qaeda leaders accounted for, eight were killed or captured by the end of 2002. Five followed in 2003 -- notably Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the principal planner of the Sept. 11 attack. This year only one more name -- Hassan Ghul, a senior courier captured infiltrating Iraq -- could be crossed off.

When Townsend cited individual captures and kills. She named Khalid Sheik Mohammed; Abu Issa al Hindi, accused of surveying U.S. financial targets for al Qaeda in 2000 and 2001; Riduan Isamuddin, the alleged Southeast Asia coordinator; Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual leader of an al Qaeda affiliate in Indonesia; and Yazid Sufaat of Malaysia, who led efforts to develop a biological weapon.”

UN RESOLUTION 1441 WIKIPEDIA:
“Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[1] [2]. On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, and by mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved.

Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections." Saddam threw the inspectors out.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SCHAUM
THE CHURCH
POSTED SEPTEMBER 26, 2009 10:37 AM

ANS:
Lucifer was the most intelligent creature created. No one was greater than Lucifer. He didn't believe God and was cast in to Hell for eternity.

Neither did Adam the first man. He was created perfect. He had no pain, no hunger, no wants. He sinned and lost everything.

Judas was one of the chosen Apostle, he was a thief and committed suicide.

St. Augustine, once a fornicator, lived with a concubine who bore his child. He became a priest, a bishop, an outstanding Doctor of the Church, and a Saint.

St. Peter betrayed Jesus, he became the first Pope. St. Paul persecuted Christians and became God’s great Evangelist.

Being a Pope, being an Apostle, does not guarantee you Paradise. Each person is responsible for their salvation, regardless of who they are. The Church is the same for everyone. Break its laws, given to it by God and pay the consequence. No one changes the Church’s dogmas, teachings and morals.

Pedophile priest pay the price. Catholic Senators, Durbin, Leahy, Kerry, who support abortion, will pay a price. Kennedy was headed for Hell; he was able to call a priest and ask forgiveness; he just may have saved his soul. Pelosi, if she refuses to change from being an abortionist will go to Hell.

Here is a link to the Moral Laws, beliefs, teachings of the Catholic Church; they have never changed since they were given to the Church by the Son of God. Obey them and go to Heaven, disobey them and go to Hell, whether a Pope a Bishop, a Priest, a Senator or a President, a millionaire or a billionaire, or a bum; there are no exceptions.

Find where any sin is condones, any sin, the seven deadly sins.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

“Long ago Leo the Great (440-461) declared, in his third homily for Christmas Day, that "the dignity of Peter suffers no diminution even in an unworthy successor"

The very indignation that the evil life of a great ecclesiastic rouses at all times (nobly expressed by Pius II in the above-mentioned letter to Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia) is itself a tribute to the high spiritual ideal which for so long and on so broad a scale the Church has presented to the world in so many holy examples, and has therefore accustomed the latter to demand from priests.

"The latter are forgiven nothing", says De Maistre in his great work, "Du Pape", "because everything is expected from them, wherefore the vices lightly passed over in a Louis XIV become most offensive and scandalous in an Alexander VI" (II, c. xiv).”

walter-in-fallschurch wrote:

"wow, you "worked with" arthur clarke, huh? very cool."

Yup. He wrote a nice acknowledgment to me in Millennium Edition of Profiles of the Future, p. ix. Plus I have some marvelous photos from him, such as this one showing him with his pet Tyrannosaurus rex:

http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#ACClarke

There is one of his papers at the lenr-canr as well.

"yes, our problems could be solved if we were all rational...

...but, darn it, we aren't."

Clarke knew that as well as anyone! He was a WWII vet. He lived through the madness. He saw RAF bombers flying off on bombing raids, many never to return. He was less optimistic in some of his non-fiction and letters. He used to say he thinks the human race as a 51% chance of survival.

I have worked with lots of people like him. Many WWII era "greatest generation" scientists. People who were at Los Alamos and who shaped the dawn of the atomic age. Schwinger, Teller, and the guy who triggered the first bomb, Vigier, a physicist who was in the resistance and showed me how he used to assassinate German officers, Lonchampt, the French AEC commissioner who designed most of the nuclear power plants in France . . . A generation of giants. None of them Dr. Pangloss types. As Oppenheimer said "we scientists have known sin." Still there was a sense of inspiration and hope that you never see with younger people. You felt they were great people with wonderful, expansive imaginations. They are nearly all dead now, and it makes me sad. Much as I appreciate the need for death, I hate to see brilliant people replaced by crabbed pedants who do computer simulations instead of real experiments.

All of those old guys, 4000 or so of them, worked on cold fusion, as you see on my web site. They knew it was real because they did experiments and saw it themselves. Real science! Measure it, see it, feel the heat, measure the tritium and radiation. Young scientists claim it does not exist because all they know how to do is read textbooks and run computer simulations. I am tempted to say you should never believe a scientist under 50.

You should see the 2009 CBS "60 Minutes" program about this. See the link at our web site. Nifty stuff. Real experiments!

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1,
"No, there are no cigars, Clinton used them all in the Oval Office, and a complacent America reelected him as a reward. Now we are being targeted by the China. We have Obama with the Clinton administration that left this country in shambles. Bush saved us, thank God, from total destruction;"

uh...yeah... how i long for the days "sex scandals" in the white house. they seem so "quaint" compared to recklessly invading iraq on false pretenses while abandoning afghanistan...(where those who attacked us are...)

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
Pamsm
“ABORTION”
Posted September 29, 2009 3:54 PM

IRT:
The ones that have come the closest are, interestingly, the Northern European countries of Switzerland and Scandinavia, where the majority of the population is atheist.

ANS:
I don’t think you should use Scandinavia as your model. True, their population is said to be atheists, consequently they are inundated with a chronic epidemic of suicide and alcoholism. Namely, they have little reason to live because they have no hope in God. As America becomes more atheistic, suicide is proliferating at a deadly rate. The leading cause of death in Kentucky is suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17458320ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

“Department of Neuroscience, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY 10032, USA. sgroves@neuron.cpmc.columbia.edu

“Adolescent suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States and alcohol consumption is estimated to cause adolescent males to be up to 17 times more likely to attempt suicide, and females three times more likely to attempt suicide” A few years ago it suicide was eighth for adults.

IRT:
“Honey, abortion has been around since the first pregnant woman figured out how not to be, and this probably predates civilization.”

ANS:
So what does that prove; murder and thievery were also around. Under your analogy, they would be legal too.

Some 43 million unborn are aborted per year worldwide. Seventy percent of Black pregnancies are out of wedlock and some 55 percent end in abortion. In 2002, an extraordinary 82.27 percent of first-born children in Nordland were born out-of-wedlock. A "mere" 67.29 percent of all children born in Nordland in 2002 were born out-of-wedlock.

IRT:
Likewise, STDs have been around for millennia. And for all this supposed American iniquity, we live like kings compared to most other countries, current and past.

ANS:
You might tell AIDS victims how they are living like a King.

Yes, the sun shines equally on the good and the bad equally. Evil begets evil, and America isn’t immune to it. You might figure that out after Obama and his Death Panels gets through with the country.

IRT:
Nice try, but no cigar.

ANS:
No, there are no cigars, Clinton used them all in the Oval Office, and a complacent America reelected him as a reward. Now we are being targeted by the China. We have Obama with the Clinton administration that left this country in shambles. Bush saved us, thank God, from total destruction; I don’t think there’s another Bush around unless it is Sarah Palin. American may be not be savable by the time Obama is through.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
Pamsm
“THE FOUR HORSEMEN”
Posted September 29, 2009 3:54 PM

IRT:
“There exists no country on Earth where poverty, pestilence (disease), war, and death are unknown, and there never will.”

ANS:
Many countries are not plagued by the Cultures of Pestilence, War and the Culture of Death, and Starvation.

Of course, there will always be starvation, poverty, and war and death somewhere because sin entered the world when Adam sinned against God. "But by the envy of the devil death came into the world". Cf. Genesis 2:17; 3:3, 19

It’s called Original Sin, and the remains of its residue will always be with us. However, the infestations and blights personified by the Four Horsemen are plagues of epidemic proportion and are the consequences of the sins visited on the victims because their dictators defy the laws of God.

In North Korea, a woman poisoned her five children as they sat down to eat the last of their food because she couldn’t watch them starve to death before her very eyes.

Similarly, a woman, crossing a bridge with her children, jumped off and smashed herself on the rocks below, because she was depressed by her abject poverty and the starvation of her children.

In the Sudan and the Congo, thousands of innocent and poor people are slaughtered, and starved to death because of unjust War. Because of war, Catholic Charities and NGO Christians are prevented from mitigating the suffering of the victims by despots. The food we send them is prevented from ever reaching them by their opprobrious dictators.

These situations are dramatic hallmarks of Godless and truculent despotic governments who eschew the NML, and violate the precepts of human nature, viz. man’s inviolable rights. This poverty is fermented from the sins against mankind and God by Godless dictators who deny the NML.

If you can’t see the difference between the poverty in the Free World and a Third World chained to profuse depravity that is generated by social materialism, then you have a problem of moral blindness.

If there is no difference beween the poverty of the Free World and the Third, no one would come to their need, and that would be very sad.

jedrothwell1,
wow, you "worked with" arthur clarke, huh? very cool. yes, our problems could be solved if we were all rational...

...but, darn it, we aren't.

My message was truncated . . . Let me finish this thought:

"These events will not reoccur because Germany and Virginia are now democracies, and democracies never invade one another."

Democracy is gradually spreading, by fits and starts, and I think it will eventually spread to all nations. That will end war.

I said that people in the future will have more "real prosperity" than we do. Clarke and I both define that carefully, and it does not mean having mountains of material goods. It means having the benefits these goods bring to us, plus immaterial benefits such as good health, unlimited free education, security, the ability to travel anywhere in comfort, and instant Internet access to every book every published, every movie, and every television program ever broadcast.

The main technical requirement is energy. As Clarke and I point out, energy is the most abundant resource in the universe. We just need to learn how to tap it more effectively, without producing pollution or unwanted side effects. This is easier than you might think, for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion. As I said, see the two books I referenced.

People suppose that Clarke was an unrealistic dreamer divorced from reality. In fact, although he had a powerful imagination, he was congenitally unable to imagine a world that does not conform to known laws of physics and engineering. All of his ideas (and mine) are physically and technically possible. We have not implemented them only because we lack gumption and smarts.

(I know a great deal about Clarke's ideas and personal beliefs, and the book "Profiles of the Future" because I worked with him on the final Millennium Edition of that book, and also on several scientific papers he published.)

Pamsm wrote:

"I do think that it's vaguely possible to eliminate war and poverty, but certainly not easy."

It is not easy but the methods are straightforward, not vague.

"A country can decide not to wage war, but if another country then decides to come marching in, will it not defend itself?"

Not long ago, Germany invaded the rest of Europe, and before that Virginia invaded Pennsylvania. These events will not reoccur because Germany and Virginia are now democracies, and democracies never invade one another. (In 1863, Virginia was tyrannical, not democratic, because they did not allow their black citizens to vote.)

"Similarly, ending poverty depends on the ability to produce and distribute food and other goods equitably across the globe. At current population levels, this just isn't going to happen."

Technically this would be very easy to accomplish. It would cost developed nations nothing. On the contrary, it would be highly profitable for them. Growing enough food is not a problem. In the book I quoted, I showed that with present-day Japanese technology, we could grow all of the food consumed in the U.S. in an area the size of Greater New York City, leaving the rest of the continent for other uses.

The reasons we do not do this are political, not technical. Foolish people imagine that in order for others to become wealthy they must be poorer. Physical resources are, of course, limited, but waste, inefficiency and pollution are so high with present day technology that reducing them would leave plenty for other people.

"If all wealth were equally distributed now, I don't think you'd be too happy about the change in your circumstances."

We can easily create far more wealth, while reducing pollution radically. There are U.S. and Japanese factories now being constructed that produce a few liters of waste per day -- a bucketful, easily contained. They replace older factories that spewed tons of filthy, toxic waste per day into the air and water.

"And to bring all of the poor up to your level is not possible."

In a few hundred years everyone will have more real prosperity than anyone alive today.

As I said, read the book, especially the last chapter. The book is here, by the way, in English, Japanese and Portuguese:

http://lenr-canr.org/BookBlurb.htm

My ideas and book owe a great deal to Arthur C. Clarke's masterpiece "Profiles of the Future."

"Disease will never go away, for all our cleverness in finding new drugs and treatments."

I said infectious disease. It has has all but gone away. I am sure AIDS will be cured sooner or later.

"And death...well, that one's here to stay."

I sure hope so. That's a good thing.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
OFRIO |
POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 12:00 AM
DELECTI, EH TITWISY

IRT
“Whereas it works quite well, no doubt, if one is clothed, ideally in a hair shirt. Then, God's little putti flock together in fluffy nude clusters to bear you up, like in all those reasonable masterpieces.

And thus into God's catechetical, mitred-and-croziered, saint-saturated heaven you're caught up, climactic as Bernini's Teresa, right by those beefcake ignudi with their neat little walnut willibalds. Why not stop by for a nibble? Mmmm, Corpus “

Revealing, your nude inclusion. Since you are such a triumphantly rational device, can you compute for us darklings why it's not acting against nature to flagellate oneself, as you do?”

ANS:
What delirious delusions of grandeur; George Bernard Shaw wrote, “The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.” Also, one commented that “Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.

It was said, “The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand. And, “If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.”

However, with such triggering of your bizarre delusions, the problem may be deeper than a lack of knowledge. I didn’t realize that such a simple word like “N--D,” (I wont repeat it since it put you into such a swirl of delusions) could trigger such latent fits of erotic ecstasy.

Of course, I should have realized that there are some on the forum immersed in the under-culture of schizophrenic paranoia and sexual erotic fantasies. Could you be a member of the San Francisco Proposition 8 Protestors?

Paranoid schizophrenia is a chronic mental illness in which reality is interpreted abnormally (psychosis).

The classic features of paranoid schizophrenia are having beliefs that have no basis in reality (delusions) and hearing things that aren't real (auditory hallucinations). Such paranoid and delusional disorders involve erotomanic, grandiose, jealous, somatic, or persecutory themes. You might check out the following link.

http://www.lifescript.com/Quizzes/Personality/Are_You_Paranoid.aspx?gclid=CMbLis6VmZ0CFQtN5QodPw6p1w&trans=1&du=1&ef_id=1350:3:c_b8cd5fa45ffc26f1001efd94906df1e2_2540568245:SsM409B6MjYAAGQLHt0AAAOA:20090930105411

Sorry, Jed, I should have been more specific. I do think that it's vaguely possible to eliminate war and poverty, but certainly not easy.

A country can decide not to wage war, but if another country then decides to come marching in, will it not defend itself? I can't see any way to truly end war until we drop all political boundaries and become simply the "family of man." I don't see this happening in the near future.

Similarly, ending poverty depends on the ability to produce and distribute food and other goods equitably across the globe. At current population levels, this just isn't going to happen. If all wealth were equally distributed now, I don't think you'd be too happy about the change in your circumstances. And to bring all of the poor up to your level is not possible.

Disease will never go away, for all our cleverness in finding new drugs and treatments. We are in an evolutionary arms race with disease-causing microbes and parasites. To think that our side will achieve some ultimate triumph is just a pipe dream. Much more likely to be the other way around. They're not as canny, but they out-reproduce us prodigiously and the world has always belonged to them.

And death...well, that one's here to stay.

Pamsm wrote:

"There exists no country on Earth where poverty, pestilence (disease), war, and death are unknown, and there never will."

Never will?!? Ugh! I loath that attitude. Hate it, hate it! That defeatism keeps us enslaved to poverty and war and other vile institutions. Let me quote from myself (from an online book):

"Traditionally, people have assumed that poverty is inevitable. 'For ye have the poor always with you . . .' This attitude has become an excuse to evade social reform. Poverty is a personal tragedy, and a threat to the community, the economy and national security. It is no more inevitable than infectious disease, pollution, smoking indoors, illiteracy, open sewers, or any of the other scourges we have eliminated."

Death is inevitable and a darn good thing it is, or we would be knee deep in Geezers getting in the way of young people. But we can and we will get rid of war, or war will get rid of us (as Truman put it). People used to say slavery, child labor and the pain of childbirth will always be with us. They were wrong, and you are wrong.

When Bush saw the effect of the 9/11 attacks, he said, "this is the first war of the 21st century." What a creep! I was under the impression that maybe we weren't going to have any more wars. Or at least, we should hope we aren't.

pam:
"There exists no country on Earth where poverty, pestilence (disease), war, and death are unknown, and there never will.
The ones that have come the closest are, interestingly, the Northern European countries of Switzerland and Scandinavia, where the majority of the population is atheist."

indeed an interesting observation. i wonder if it has to do with the fact that, being atheist, they see morality as "allegiance to each other" instead of "allegiance to god's rules".

"We see those consequences in the nations that freely violate the Natural Moral Laws. The consequences are personified in the Apocalyptic Four Horsemen--Poverty, Pestilence, War, and Death. They overshadow the nations of China, Russia, the Middle East, the Congo, and the Sudan.
In America, we have executed over 50 million unborn and in effect are destroying our posterity and prodigy by abortion. We are threatened by STDs because we have embraced the Culture of Death and the Sexual Revolution, the anti-thesis of the NML."

What a load of bull, TT. Try to marshall a few facts before you argue.

There exists no country on Earth where poverty, pestilence (disease), war, and death are unknown, and there never will.

The ones that have come the closest are, interestingly, the Northern European countries of Switzerland and Scandinavia, where the majority of the population is atheist.

Only 50-million abortions? "Threatened" by STDs?? Do you honestly believe that all abortions have taken place since Roe v. Wade decriminalized them? Honey, abortion has been around since the first pregnant woman figured out how not to be, and this probably predates civilization.

Likewise, STDs have been around for millennia. Far from being visited particularly on America for her wickedness, they are under better control, thanks to the human innovation of modern medicine, than ever before in the history of our species. And for all this supposed American iniquity, we live like kings compared to most other countries, current and past.

Nice try, but no cigar.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIEL12
POSTED SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 1:47 AM

“There is a general understanding of how man will behave in this situation and that, therefore there are certain rights man has for being unable to act in any other way. Furthermore, a little bit in the direction of change is asked of man because it is common knowledge that a man is somewhat changeable--and this little bit comes under what we call laws against violence, etc. Every man has a right to his little piece of ground and other common and necessary behaviors, but his rights are also curtailed by laws against violence. Natural law."

ANS:
If there is an understanding of how man will behave in certain moral situation, would that be denying man has a free will? Man’s rights are not curtailed by the Natural Law; they are given to him by the Natural Law. They are curtailed by despots; they are ordered by reason. Man can freely choose to violate the Natural Moral Laws (NML), but he must pay the consequences. Many do and many pay the consequences.

We see those consequences in the nations that freely violate the Natural Moral Laws. The consequences are personified in the Apocalyptic Four Horsemen--Poverty, Pestilence, War, and Death. They overshadow the nations of China, Russia, the Middle East, the Congo, and the Sudan.

In America, we have executed over 50 million unborn and in effect are destroying our posterity and prodigy by abortion. We are threatened by STDs because we have embraced the Culture of Death and the Sexual Revolution, the anti-thesis of the NML. Thusly, man can violate the NML, but he cannot choose the consequences.

Persiflage,

Thee:
"If you were religious you'd be dangerous:^)"

Yes, since I withdrew my subscription I'm (mostly) toothless, yet not above a bootless cry, now and then.

Am admiring your corrective angelology, your winsome summons to outflank our baseness, et cetera.

Yours, Bhairava.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIEL12
POSTED SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 1:47 AM

IRT:
“Natural law--an interesting subject. I have read concerning natural law everything from that it is so absolute that it has come from God to it being relative almost to the point humans cannot expect any moral stability from a natural law, that humans change too much and too unpredictably to state a natural law concerning themselves.

ANS:
It is written, Matthew 19:23-30 “With man nothing is possible; with God all things are possible.” Consequently, man can do nothing on his own that transcends his natural being. Therefore, God will make man perfect with His supernatural graces that He gives to man through His Church.

It is said by Saint Augustine, ”Lord our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” Scripture says, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him," 1Cor 2: 9. Therefore, man can be perfect because God has promised those who love Him eternal happiness, and God never goes back on His word.

Moreover, since God is All-Just, He will never make it impossible to fulfill His Will. Consequently, all men have the ability to enjoy the fruits of God's Heavenly Kingdom.

God is Merciful, but He is also Just. Thus, all men will get their Just due.

Onofrio,

Your reply to TTWSY, etc.

Now that's what I'm talkin' about!!
The imagination of a master at work....

Thank the nongods you're a humorist. If you were religious you'd be dangerous:^)

Salute!

Persiflage

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CORNBREAD_R2
“FREEDOM”
Posted September 28, 2009 10:05 PM

IRT:
“Re: Something else you wrote: "Man is endowed with free will by God that he may choose to love God freely. [...] Though the graces are profuse, prodigious, propitious, and God's love is unfailing, many choose to be witless and foolish, and suffer the same fate as Satan's."

Let's say I put you inside a house surrounded by a bottomless fiery moat and then told you that you were free to leave if you wanted. Would you be truly free to leave?”

ANS:
There are different kinds of freedom. One is moral freedom; the other is physical freedom. Moral freedom is the ability to choose to act for one’s own good by doing what is right in accord with reason. Therefore, it would depend on what you mean by freedom. Under your scenario, there is no physical freedom, yet the person is morally free to leave. God gives you both a moral and physical choice.

Hence, Civil law makes it illegal, let’s say, to murder someone. Consequently, you can choose to murder someone or not murder someone. If you commit murder, you break the law. If you are caught, you will be punished. In such a case, you were physically free, but you weren’t legally or morally free to do so, yet you were free to make a choice.

Unrestrained freedom is an oxymoron. True freedom must be ordered. Thus, driving in the middle of traffic jam at 5pm in New York’s Time Square when all the traffic lights suddenly go out, you would not be free to drive till order was restored. You are morally free to go, but not physically free.

Similarly, if I give you a dictionary and tell you, it contains the greatest novel ever written; all you have to do is put the words in order. You would be free to read that novel by reading the entire dictionary, but not understand it unless you ordered the words.

God’s moral law is the ordering of human behavior. You will not be truly free unless you order your life in accord to God's Natural Moral Law (NML). Namely, you won’t be perfect unless your life is put in the proper order, and God's NML will help you do that. Moreover, the NML is a gift of love from God not a punishment, but a benefaction that will make you perfect and eternally happy.

Natural law--an interesting subject. I have read concerning natural law everything from that it is so absolute that it has come from God to it being relative almost to the point humans cannot expect any moral stability from a natural law, that humans change too much and too unpredictably to state a natural law concerning themselves. But in general when such a concept is considered with respect to politics--or if politics is simply considered and with no direct statement concerning natural law--we have the belief that people are only so malleable, that there is a general behavior that man displays--therefore there are generally agreed on rights concerning man based on man not being able to act in any other way. In other words it is agreed that if an imposition in the direction of severity is placed on man he will resist the imposition--this is recognized whether one lives in a democracy or a country in which there is an absolute dictator. In other words--and to repeat--there is a general understanding of how man will behave in this situation and that, therefore there are certain rights man has for being unable to act in any other way. Furthermore a little bit in the direction of change is asked of man because it is common knowledge that a man is somewhat changeable--and this little bit comes under what we call laws against violence, etc. Every man has a right to his little piece of ground and other common and necessary behaviors, but his rights are also curtailed by laws against violence. Natural law.

TTWSYFAMDGGHJMJ1,

Thee:
"one would act against his nature if he attempted to fly by jumping off a cliff nude."

Whereas it works quite well, no doubt, if one is clothed, ideally in a hair shirt. Then, God's little putti flock together in fluffy nude clusters to bear you up, like in all those reasonable masterpieces. And thus into God's catechetical, mitred-and-croziered, saint-saturated heaven you're caught up, climactic as Bernini's Teresa, right by those beefcake ignudi with their neat little walnut willibalds. Why not stop by for a nibble? Mmmm, Corpus Delecti, eh Titwisy?

Revealing, your nude inclusion...

Since you are such a triumphantly rational device, can you compute for us darklings why it's not acting against nature to flagellate oneself, as you do?

And have you ever tried it nude? Revelations please.

You must get very, very tempted when (if?) you take a bath.

Ah, the perils of *being clean*...

TTWSY:

"Rhetoric will not suffice"

And yet, rhetoric is all you offer. You cannot offer any proof of any claim you make. There is no "natural law". And don't bother quoting Aquinas. He was debunked long ago.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SCHAUM
MORALITY
POSTED SEPTEMBER 28, 2009 10:38 AM

IRT:
"If you imagine you convince anyone here that you are in any way a 'godly' person, you are delusional."

ANS:
Sorry, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, just stating the facts when it‘s evident they are being distorted. If you cannot accept them, then you should refute them. If you cannot refute them, than you have a problem. Rhetoric will not suffice; you need a rational demonstration of their fallacies. At least, you can say you have been apprised of their existence.

IRT:
“The laws of conscience and "imperative" which you imagine to be derived from god and nature proceed, in fact, from custom."

ANS:
"Conscience" is the nascent discernment of the Natural Moral Law (NML). Therefore NML is a natural entity, a.k.a. of conscience. However, you deny the NML is based on nature. Conscience is a part of man’s nature, and it is an innate power of discernment of good and evil endowed by the Creator in human nature.

Custom is a habitual practice of acting in given circumstances; it doesn’t have any direction or purpose. What gives "custom" purpose is reason. "Reasonable" is for man's reason to be in accord with reality. Unreasonable is to act irrational or against human nature. It is a prescription for confusion, frustration, and disaster.

For example, one would act against his nature if he attempted to fly by jumping off a cliff nude. This is analogous to a man breaking the Natural Moral Law. Only the consequences are different, both break the Natural Law and both are equally dumb.

Tradition is the passing down of the wisdom experienced through the ages. Wisdom is the quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is true or right, coupled with just judgment. Wisdom is manifested in actions of sagacity, discernment, and insight. Namely, Wisdom is acting according to reason established in the moral laws.

IRT:
"Nothing more. You are a curious, and very small, person who, in your own right, is as misguided, bigoted and emotionally disturbed...Fear and primitive "morality."

ANS:
To be reasonable is to act according to reason. Unreasonable is to act in contrast to what is rationale and true. The Moral Law ia rhw natural law that delineates the proper human behavior; it is based on man’s nature, a.k.a. his reason under the auspices of his free will. Consequently, not to obey the moral law is acting against one’s reason and is to act irrationally
.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1:

Read your original post again. You've largely responded to things I didn't write about things you didn't write. Nice bait and switch.

Re: Something else you wrote: "Man is endowed with free will by God that he may choose to love God freely. [...] Though the graces are profuse, prodigious, propitious, and God's love is unfailing, many choose to be witless and foolish, and suffer the same fate as Satan's."

Let's say I put you inside a house surrounded by a bottomless firey moat and then told you that you were free to leave if you wanted. Would you be truly free to leave?

Well, this natural law thing is proving to be quite the interesting conundrum. Animals, particularly herd/pack beasties, display behaviors that we would consider moral, such as cooperation for hunting or defense, especially defense of the young. These things can also be considered instinctive defense/survival mechanisms.

As to things like 'don't lie', 'don't kill anyone in the tribe (excluding leadership battles or duels), is this something learned over time that contributes to group cooperation and thus survival of the group?

I gotta watch it, I'm gonna confuse myself even more than usual!

Arminius:

"Natural law" is, as you have described it, cultural and related to the customs and beliefs of individual societies. Natural rights are more a question of moral rights, I think...the so called inalienable rights conferred by legislation and caveat, and which are not contingent upon any other laws or societal customs or beliefs. They are universal...not culturally or politically relative to the individual's existence.

One of the problems I have with what I consider to be the lunacy of "natural law" is that I have never believed all men are created equal. Nature is not consistent enough for that to even come close to being true. That men can be DECLARED equal by things like constitutions is a different matter, and has nothing to do with the so-called "natural law".

Schaum,

"My own perception is that most people, including Antonin Scalia, who prattle incessantly about "natural law" (which would more fairly be referred to as convention) have, in fact, confused that theory with the theory of natural rights. They are not the same."

How are they different? I'm not really disputing, just want you to elaborate.

Hey Arminius,

Here below is a pretty good synopsis of instinctive behavior in humans - our primitive ancestor as he meets your definition of hunter, predator and social pack animal e.g. as in wolves rather than donkeys :^)

Ruminations on the myriad historical & socio-cultural results of melding human instinct with the exigencies of human cognition becomes true grist for every human discipline.....

In some sense, one can say that everything human is naturally arising, but immanent natural 'spiritual' laws i.e. natural moral law, is a different thing altogether.

These, I would maintain, emerge from the imaginative faculty by way of experience over time and tend to be spread around. It is exceedingly hard to separate the origins of anything distinctively human from the workings of human consciousness itself. Culture is inherited, along with biology.

Rules that govern behavior are cognitive constructs usually based on values and beliefs, whether for individuals or groups.

That these have a basis in human instinct is debatable, because humans are able to transcend 'instinctive' behaviorial predictates, whereas other animals are far less able to do so. We need to conspire as societies and individuals to get beyond our primal instincts on a much more frequent basis!

Just another point of view...

regards, Persiflage

http://vclass.mgt.psu.ac.th/~parinya/avd-serv-imc/sectionTWOFiles/takingadvantage/biology.html

My own perception is that most people, including Antonin Scalia, who prattle incessantly about "natural law" (which would more fairly be referred to as convention) have, in fact, confused that theory with the theory of natural rights. They are not the same.

"Abstinence makes the church grow fondler."

Good one, Pam! Here is another:

"Of all sexual aberrations, chastity is the strangest."
- Anatole France

Persiflage,

Yes, man is a gregarious animal - but he is not a herd animal, he is a pack animal, a hunter. The natural law seems to be inherent in all groups. The problem arises in group interactions with other groups, which all too often have led, and obviously still lead, to 'us vs them' tribalism. Best viewed in nation vs nation, and religion vs all those who disagree. Microcosms of this, however, are depressingly common.

TTWSYetc.,

Abstinence makes the church grow fondler.

Natural moral law can be more easily explained in the emergent context of the fundamental human (survival) instinct to group together - thus comes the highly touted gregariousness of human behavior on many different and complex levels.

Anything said to be 'natural' is understood to be on equal footing with the force of gravity and the speed of light - these are indeed representative of natural laws.

The givens of human nature have yet to be completely sorted out, in my view - but most likely, we make the stuff of culture up as we go along, and because we can. The human imagination is highly underrated as a purveyor of destiny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cohesion

Arminius:

"Cursory observation would lead us to think that there is some merit in it, anyway"

Cursory observation has led YOU to think there is some merit in it. Others disagree.

I am among them. It is a discredited human hypothesis, as Persiflage has correctly stated.

Schaum,

More thoughts on natural law: it has a nasty tendency to be very relative in a tribal way. In other words, if you kill your neighbor, rape his daughter, and loot his house, your are very guilty. But if you do that to an enemy of the tribe, that's OK.

Schaum,

The concept of natural law, or natural moral law, as opposed to civil law, or custom, goes clear back to Aristotle. It figures in many philosophers' writings, and apparently has echos in our Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..". The idea is that there are certain basic laws which all human societies tend to obey - don't steal, don't murder, etc. Obviously, there are differences on what that list of natural laws actually is. Cursory observation would lead us to think that there is some merit in it, anyway.

TTWSY:

"It is not based on dislikes; that is the argument others rely on when they have no understanding what human nature is. Consequently, you have no sense of how absurd it is to say Morals are based likes or dislikes."

Another of your red herrings, delusions and evasions: I said nothing about Morals. I specifically said YOUR PERCEPTION of morality. That is a different thing entirely.

Natural Moral Law exists only in your mind.

The simplistic/absolutist view of complex mythical symbologies, the underlying fabric of religious belief, is pretty typical of the the myopic fundamentalism of religious literalists, such as TTWSY, etc.

For example, he sez:

'You might take note that the greatest creature God created, Lucifer, the Light of Heaven, fell from the skies like a bolt of lightening into Hells’ eternal pit of fire. Then Adam, who was made perfect, screwed up and was banned from the Garden of Eden. Both thought they were equal to God.'

At least get your angelology correct - by other more learned standards, Lucifer, the bringer of light, is still an angel in good standing, and still otherwise known as the Morning star.....

Samael is more likely the 'fallen angel' - and is also the Demiurge of Gnosticism....self-deluded creator of a fallen world.

Hopefully we won't have to scrutinize the the whole Garden of Eden business more closely, in order to detect the rich mythical symbolism contained therein....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

RE: Natural moral law - another humanly inspired relativistic hypothesis now largely discredited....and a holdover from bygone days before folks discovered and/or developed real psychological insight.

Keeping oneself at arm's length from oneself is but one of the ancillary functions of religion and religious belief - a perfect exteriorization of otherness in an all-poweful divine format.

Strange psychology for this day and age...

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SCHAUM
MORALITY
POSTEDSEPTEMBER 28, 2009 10:38 AM

IRT:
“Your perception of 'morality' strikes me as nothing more than the attitude that you have adopted toward people whom you personally dislike.”

ANS:
Not only is your perception wrong, because of your predispositions, you are blindly impervious to reality of human nature. Morality is based on human nature said many times in my post. It is not based on dislikes; that is the argument others rely on when they have no understanding what human nature is. Consequently, you have no sense of how absurd it is to say Morals are based likes or dislikes.

The Natural Moral Law is objective and universal because it is the fundamental laws for human proper behavior that is in accord with human nature. They are not dependent on opinions, likes or dislikes, religion, race, or ethnic origins. They are universal and exacting because they are based on human nature.

Because of your free will, you can choose what ever you wish to believe, but no matter what you believe you will be held morally responsible for it, and the consequences for your beliefs cannot be chosen; they are determined by the Natural Law of which God is its author. The Natural Law is not prejudice, subjective, or subject to compromise, so it is important to get it correct. Those who don't must inevitably suffer the consequences.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CORNBREAD
GAYS AND THE CHURCH:
POSTED SEPTEMBER 26, 2009 1:04 AM

IRT;
“I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that sex abuse has probably occurred in religious and secular institutions from their inceptions and that the Catholic Church is no better, or worse, in this regard than any other institution.”

ANS:
You may be right; Catholics are little, if not any different, than how the public behaves. A majority of Catholics antipatheticly have voted for two abortionists, Obama and Clinton.

Moreover, Catholic divorces are about the same as the public’s. Twenty percent of Catholics no longer believe in God and Latino atheists went from 4% to 12%. However, a survey showed that for devout Catholics only 2% of their marriages ended in divorce.

IRT:
"What this apostate finds curious, however, is that this abuse occurred in a religious institution that proclaims to be intimately guided by a Holy Spirit...awash in...grace...[so what makes Catholics so special?]

ANS:
Catholics are not special but fortunate. The Church is special because God is the Church’s head and nothing is impossible with God, Who is Omnipotent and Prescienc. Therefore, the Church is infallible in its universal teachings and beliefs, and Her graces are unfathomable. Though God is without error and Perfect, All Good, and Merciful, all men are fallible and must seek these graces to receive them.

You can take a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. The Catholic Church is profound; don’t knock it unless you’ve seriously tried it. Sen. Kennedy was a Catholic rogue all his life but most likely ended up back in the Church and will make it to heaven, as did the rogue on the Cross, the good thief.

You might take note that the greatest creature God created, Lucifer, the Light of Heaven, fell from the skies like a bolt of lightening into Hells’ eternal pit of fire. Then Adam, who was made perfect, screwed up and was banned from the Garden of Eden. Both thought they were equal to God.

In addition, the Apostle Judas of the chosen 12, committed suicide, nor are Popes or priest guaranteed salvation. Everyone must earn it by obeying God’s will manifested through His Church.

Man is endowed with free will by God that he may choose to love God freely. Many Catholics have chosen not to; the pedophile priests are evidence of that. Though the graces are profuse, prodigious, propitious, and God's love is unfailing, many choose to be witless and foolish, and suffer the same fate as Satan's.

TTWSY:

Your perception of 'morality' strikes me as nothing more than the attitude that you have adopted toward people whom you personally dislike. If you imagine you convince anyone here that you are in any way a 'godly' person, you are delusional. The laws of conscience and "imperative" which you imagine to be derived from god and nature proceed, in fact, from custom. Nothing more. You are a curious, and very small, person who, in your own right, is as misguided, bigoted and emotionally disturbed as Daniel12. Fear and primitive "morality" such as yours have created a pressure cooker in this country. Fortunately, reasonable people have loosened the top, and it will not now blow.

You need help, and you will never get it. Like Daniel, you will die old, alone, and emotionally shriveled, hiding, to the end, from yourself and your hopeless condition. What you imagine to be religious morality in fact stands between you and life. You are like a character drawn by Tennessee Williams. Not for all the money in this country would I want to be like you, or the racist Daniel12. You are both stereotypes -- the worst thing I can think of saying about someone -- and a rational society is forcing you, and those like you, to the back of the line.

And Lincoln thought secession was a bad idea.

http://www.wyff4.com/cnn-news/21125802/detail.html

TTWSY, meet Daniel12.

Daniel12, meet TTWSY.

You two have a lot in common, and can perhaps get a good price on the antipsychotics you both need, if you buy in bulk.

REPLY TO (IRT)
CORNBREAD
GAYS AND THE CHURCH:

IRT;
I see, so if it weren't for some post-1973 leftists and the American Psychiatric Association there wouldn't have ever been any homosexually oriented priests and there wouldn't have ever been any abuse? Interesting. And, even if there were, people wouldn't be blaming the church if it weren't for a bunch of atheistic cavemen -- possibly from Louisiana?!?

ANS:
Are you saying the APA had no input on the Church as to the treatment of homosexuals in the priesthood? To the contrary, it had a good deal of input. Psychiatrists were the major factors for the mistaken recovery of these pedophiles.

The APA was only one reason for allowing gays into the priesthood. Another is “homosexuality” is not a sin, but an unnatural order of the concupiscence. However, when these pedophile priests were found out they were sent away for treatment. Under the auspices of the APA, the psychiatric community found these priests sound and capable of being put back into society. That was a fatal mistake.

Yes, the APA Psychiatrists were no different from atheistic cavemen because they analyized man outside of the context of his inherent moral imperatives.

peter, pam, onofrio(?), mary,
let's use david's thread 'till that "times out". if david has a new one, we'll just move to there. if david doesn't have a new thread, we'll meet up at susan's newest thread and pick new, empty thread on which to continue.

And need I add that if the Democratic party puts into operation the plan against racism I have just put forward it will be an incalculable blow against the Republican party, that Democratic party dominance will be assured for years to come, that the Republican party will have to seriously reinvent itself--at least be forced to not be the party of racism? Apparently so...

The Republican party has been called any number of times the white party, the racist party and contrasted with the non-racist Democratic party. If the Democratic party is serious about the problem of racism, if the Democratic party wants to take a giant step in overcoming racism in America, there is a very easy and obvious step which can be taken which needs no coercion at all. The leaders of the Democratic party--or even common members of such--can bring to the party's attention that the rate of interracial marriage in America is extremely low and that a giant step can be taken against racism by having all Democratic party members not gay marry and have children by a person of a different race, which of course should be easy because a member of a different race can easily be found, for the Democratic party is the party of the multiracial and the Republican party is the white party.

Count the Democratic party members. Now have them follow this marriage law they establish within themselves--which of course should be easy to do for they are so non-racist--and we have within one generation a blow against racism in America from which it will never recover. Imagine the sudden emergence of millions of biracial, multiracial children. But has a single Democratic party member brought such an idea forward? No. And what excuse possible for no such idea? Not only does it qualify as a piece of imagination to galvanize further thought--thought to work through impracticalities--it is eminently workable. There is no coercion at all. There is merely an asking of the Democratic party to follow through on what it never tires of asserting is one of its great values over the Republican party in the first place.

So what excuse Democrats? What excuse for not thinking up a plan to do in "racists" such as myself? How is it that a supposed racist such as myself can easily bring up a workable plan against racism but your whole damn party cannot? Could it possibly be you are nothing but a party of stinking hypocrites, perfectly happy to call yourselves non-racist if Tyrone is sitting next to Jason on the bus but unable to marry Kadeesha or Ling Trin or Mohammed and actually take a true step in overcoming racism? Or is it you can think up a better plan for overcoming racism than I can--or that the Democratic party already has a plan? I would dearly like to hear your plans. I have the courtesy to give mine for the sake of America and now where is yours? Answer: you have no plan. And have no plan because you have never seriously thought about how racism can be overcome in the first place. With "non-racists" such as yourselves I think it is fair to say racism has a long time yet before it disappears in the world.

Schaum,

I think the most interesting day I had at prison was the one on which three FBI agents walked into my classroom and arrested an inmate for attempting to arrange the murder of his wife while he was in prison. Don't these guys know their phone conversations are listened to? Being arrested while you are already a prison inmate...kinda screws up your day, I'd think.
-------------------
I'm sure I would have considered that interesting, myself.

The other side, as it were. My brother recently served on a jury during which the prosecution worked out a nonsensical plea agreement, permitting an obviously dangerous husband to go after his wife again within thirty days.

Afterward, the jurors assailed the ADA placing guilt upon them for whatever might happen to her.

Somehow, it's a mess. The entire judicial system, from beginning to end.

I think the most interesting day I had at prison was the one on which three FBI agents walked into my classroom and arrested an inmate for attempting to arrange the murder of his wife while he was in prison. Don't these guys know their phone conversations are listened to? Being arrested while you are already a prison inmate...kinda screws up your day, I'd think.

Farnaz:

"Some, who are thriving today, would surely be dead by now."

I think to have come from the streets, and to have no place but the streets to which to return, must be devastating. I wonder how many simply give up and die of broken spirits. Prison should be reserved for the dangerous who simply cannot be permitted to live among us, not those who have committed the so-called 'victimless' crimes. Surely other forms of useful punishment/penance/rehabilitation could be devised for them.

Schaum,

One man I spoke to had been doing well until he found out that his girlfriend was pregnant. He thought he was excited, but soon found himself out looking for drugs. If he hadn't run into a fellow ex con, who told him about Fortune, I'm sure he would have been re-incarcerated.

As it is, he married his daughter's mother, is building a successful career, owns his own home.

Schaum,

Yes, prison conditions are a national disgrace.
It's hard to believe what you see and hear. One thing that haunts me about the Fortune Society is how many found there way there by chance, sheer luck. Some, who are thriving today, would surely be dead by now.

Daniel12,

Thee:
"Again, no sarcasm, no satire. Actual imagination. Show me you can be a better non-racist than I can be. Make a law better than mine, regardless of whether it can actually be put into operation."

Hmm. Miscegenate or die. Is that really the best you can imagine? Such fantasy coercion screams a poverty of imagination, and a surfeit of folly and cruelty.

Not bold, but bluntly dumb.

And no, I won't be stooping to your law-conjuring *challenge* either.

Hi Pam, Walter, Onofrio and Mary,

I tried posting on September 17th, both on Susan's old forum and the link Walter supplied, before leaving for Florida. Neither post was accepted.

Which forum do you propose we dine out in?

Time is a commodity that I do not have an abundance of like in the summer so Wednesday will be the earliest I can start to reply to some of your long awaited questions.

PS. Mary, are you Canadian?

Farnaz:

Thanks for the link. One of the points which it makes:

"The study indicates that even small improvements in medical care could significantly reduce recidivism."

Thats interesting. One of the things I found out about the prison I was teaching in is that they do not provide any kind of dental care EXCEPT extractions. I wonder what quality of physician/psychiatrist would go to practice in a prison? I'd think a substantial portion of the population would need psychiatric/psychological services pretty badly.

Schaum,

Here's a good site on recidivism. It also references a report with recommendations for prisons.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933722.html

Farnaz:

"I volunteered for the Fortune Society, which does more than cut down on recidivism."

They told us, several times, that the recidivism rate was approximately 70%. Is that true, or just prison hype? I know the US has a larger percentage of its population in prison than any other nation; I wonder if we are really that bad.

Farnaz:

"Some of these men and women have spent their entire lives in the system."

Agreed. For some, there is no other way of life...they can't survive outside of prison.

And I think it would have been a rewarding experience if I'd been trained to deal with their special needs. Really, where the math was concerned anyway, the average attention span was about 3.5 minutes...and I don't know how to counteract that. It was one of my big teaching failures.

Daniel12:

"Show me you can be a better non-racist than I can be."

That is a presupposition failure: you presuppose that I agree you are a non-racist. I don't. I think you are one of the nastiest little racists I've encountered here.

And frankly, I don't think you can be taught much of anything.

Schaum,

I've never worked in a prison, but I've spoken with women who worked with both male and female inmates, heard stories about manipulation, etc., but they found the work rewarding and went on with it.

I volunteered for the Fortune Society, which does more than cut down on recidivism. It is instrumental in helping ex-cons, felons, turn their lives around, develop successful careers, build their own families.

Some of these men and women have spent their entire lives in the system.

Schaum, the problem with you--and unfortunately way too many people in the world--is you think if a thinker says something you disagree with, establishes something of a pattern of things you disagree with--as I have done with you--that there is no way the thinker can suddenly turn around and say something of not only your own position, but say it better. But one of the hallmarks of the true thinker is that he is both one's best friend and worst enemy, capable of stating one's own position better than oneself, and stating the opposite better than any other enemy. Quite simply Schaum, you read my previous stuff and established me as a racist, so what I wrote now can only be satire or sarcasm against you, but the fact is I just stated the non-racist position better than any non-racist I ever heard of. Or do you Shaum--or any other non-racist--have the imagination to do better than state that all people in America if they want to have children should have them by a different race than one's own--or be shot--or if wanting to marry without marrying a person of different race marry someone of their own sex? Can you do as I just did and establish a law which not only ends racism but ends homophobia? True such a thing cannot be put into operation, but the imagination is what counts. Everything begins with imagination. And not even the Democratic party--not even all the thousands upon thousands of non-racists in America--have come up with a law better than what I just stated. All the non-racists might as well be racist, for what imagination do they demonstrate when it comes to race? Again, no sarcasm, no satire. Actual imagination. Show me you can be a better non-racist than I can be. Make a law better than mine, regardless of whether it can actually be put into operation. I want to see that. Show me how non-racist you can imagine yourself to be.

Farnaz:

I've had direct contact with a prison full of men...I taught GED math component one summer between semesters.

Something I will not do again.

Daniel12:

1) You seem to think that sarcasm and satire are equivalent to scorn. They are not.

2) Racism cannot be eliminated by "actions" or legislation. Racism results from fear. Fear cannot be eliminated by any method that you propose.

"...the Hells Angels were really something."

Depends on what you mean. Is being a member of a known bunch of drug dealers "really something"? There is also an unverified rumor that in order to become a full-fledged member, one must commit a felony or some other disgusting act.

All this gunshot-mediated reform, Daniel12...Stalin and Mao and Saloth Sar would be awestruck.

Daniel12,

Thee:
"Bikers used to be the real thing--and in pockets here and there still are. But most bikers it seems--especially these day--are living an act more than anything."

Down here recently, at Sydney airport, a posse (dismounted) of about two dozen *outlaw* bikers from one gang ambushed some unsuspecting *off-duty* rival bikers from another in a coordinated attack. For weapons they used those metal queue-stands that hold up a rope - instant maces. They beat one man to death and wounded a bunch of others - all in front of security cameras and terrified passers-by.

All about drugs and turf and *face*, I daresay. In the Iron Age, some blind poet would have eulogised them.

To Schaum from Daniel concerning my latest post on race. I do not believe what I wrote can be put into operation in the U.S. Such a thing is an impossibility--but there is no sarcasm or satire about stating such a thing. I am not scorning anyone who would get such a thing in mind. If I were to have absolute power certainly much of the first four points would be put into operation--for exactly what I wrote would solve the problem of race and homophobia as well, and also solve the problem of general mediocrity in intellectual matters in the U.S. Where I became less serious was on the later points--and there I gave every indication of being not serious, saying such things as "well, actually, maybe not that one". No sarcasm and satire at all. Where not serious clearly indicated. Where serious actually being serious. But the part of wresting power to put said points into operation is obviously an impossibility. So America will continue to go on as it is--all races within pretty much racist not least because the rate of intermarriage between races is so low. And homophobia rampant because gay marriage not even allowed for gays in America. But I was serious more than you think. No sarcasm or satire. All that remains to be said to you here is actually a question. What would you do if you had absolute power to overcome racism in America? Can you do better than my first four points especially? Especially the really nice point that a person either has children by a person of a different race than his or her own or gets shot or if wanting to get married without marrying a person of a different race from his or her own having to enter a gay marriage? I like that point a lot. Solve racism and homophobia by a single law.

I have had direct contact with former prisoners. Are you familiar with the Fortune Society?

Regarding the Prison Minsistries, themoderate asks:

"Recidivism rates? Any data?"

There is lots of data. Too much, both pro and con. The real problem is that this is very complex and causality is difficult to establish under the circumstances. In other words, assuming recidivism is actually reduced, you can't tell whether the religious program causes people to go straight, or whether people who are inclined to go straight enter the program. Generally speaking, prisoners who do what they are told and what is approved of by the wardens and by society do well. So, if society decides it is a good idea for prisoners to learn macrame, the ones who do that are likely to have a lower recidivism rate.

To test whether religion really helps or not, you would have to encourage one group to become religious, and another group to become atheists, per my previous suggestion. Since this is hardly likely to be approved perhaps you could encourage the control group to do something similar to religion without any supernatural content, such as yoga or perhaps music.

There is famous study of factory worker satisfaction and lighting conditions in which researchers found that workers do better when experts come and increase lighting, or when they decrease it, or when they leave it alone. As long as the researchers ask the workers what they prefer, and the workers get the impression that they matter and someone wants to improve their performance, they do better. So, a project to promote macrame or yoga among prisoners would probably have a positive effect, even thought these skills have no market value or practical use. Religion also has no practical use as far as I can tell, so I would recommend that prisoners be taught more useful subjects, such as how to read. A large fraction of them are illiterate or functionally illiterate. As I mentioned, my mother used to teach them, and she reported that functional illiteracy is high.

Someone here suggested that prisoners tend to be stupid or lazy. I have not had direct contact with them, although I know a lot of people who should be locked up but are wealthy and successful instead. I do not get a sense that these people are stupid from their letters to my mother, or from what I have read and seen of them. My impression is that they tend to be: incredibly unlucky people; people with no education or skills who were essentially dumped on the street as small children; people with childhood experiences more unspeakable than any Dickens novel, who were -- for example -- raped and sold into slavery by their parents; people who got caught doing things most of us do (such as recreational drugs); and of course evil people. In most cases it does not seem likely to me that putting them cages and allowing them to be sodomized, raped, and treated like animals will improve the situation, so I favor prison reform.

Farnaz,

Thee:
"Peruniunt montes, et mus ridiculus nascitur."

This mus most ridiculable must salute :^) Thy wit to mine is Atlantic to a wren's egg.

To Onofrio from Daniel. I should not have been so hasty to say anything about the biker thing, for the Hells Angels were really something. I meant more the whole fashion of the thing--which Harley-Davidson is only too glad to promote. Bikers used to be the real thing--and in pockets here and there still are. But most bikers it seems--especially these day--are living an act more than anything.

Moderate,

Thee:
"Res ipsa loquitur."

I have a high view of Myth, Moderate, that does Science honour.

Thee:
"Have you ever flown somewhere on an airplane?"

Indeed. I perceived clearly that it was held up by Shu and teeming Hehu. Heehee.

Thee:
"Did you ever sue an antibiotic?"

O nongod bless the Typo :^) You know, I'm sure there's an antibiotic or two out there I could take to court, if not dinner.

Pax.

"I've just about come to the conclusion that without Jews, fags and women, there would be no religion these days. What would be the point?"

I am Episcopal. We have no problem with Jews, we have an openly gay bishop, and many women as priests. And we still have our religion, and are quite happy with it, we harm none, malign none, and try to help all where we can.

Have made much the same statement, but, of course, metaphorically, as did Onofrio, I suspect.

At all events, "Dialectics" sums it up, and, as always,

Peruniunt montes, et mus ridiculus nascitur.

"Don't know if I wrote what you quote"

'twas Onofrio, actually.

Moderate:

Backatcha:

Peruniunt montes, et mus ridiculus nascitur.

Moderate,

Don't know if I wrote what you quote (rhyme unintended).

But, at any rate, see "Dialectics of the Enlightenment."

If you've already seen it, let's talk the first chapter.

"Just as History = Necromancy, Science = Myth.

And that we can *know* right *now*, no?"

No.

A few example questions of thousands about what makes your life tolerable and interesting for your consideration:

Did you did use a computer to write that?
Did you use the the Internet to post it?
Did that computer run on electricity?
Was the room you wrote it in illuminated by electricity?
Did your mother survive child birth because of medical science?
Did you ever sue an antibiotic?
Do you eat plentiful food improved by scientific agriculture?
Have you ever flown somewhere on an airplane?

Res ipsa loquitur.

Schaum,

You have made an excellent point. I think one could add several other groups to the list. Then each religion could, of course, compose its own list.

Clearly, the need for religion is great.

Farnaz:

I've just about come to the conclusion that without Jews, fags and women, there would be no religion these days. What would be the point?

D12,

I wouldn't get too upset by CCNL1's cuts and pastes from a Times Book Review of 2002. It is now 2009, and less than 400 copies of Etz Haim have been bought by Conservative Synagogues.

Also, the articles in the back of the text do not figure in services.

And they are simply the articles of scholars. The same should be done for the NT, IMHO, for Christian/Catholic churches. Long, long overdue.

Schaum,

As a harpsichordist I think you'll like this one as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4jvmh_Giaw

Persiflage:

You are truly the renaissance man! NOTHING soothes like a Bach fugue. Or anything else contrapuntal that he wrote.

Daniel12:

"Method of putting a decisive end to racism in the United States: A group of people wrest power from current governmental process and state a few brutal but intelligent laws"

It is very difficult to determine whether you are attempting sarcasm or satire. You seem to have confused the two.

If you want to write sarcasm, you need to read everything written by Oscar Levant. He was the master of sarcasm.

If you are attempting satire, of course, you will do no better than to study Juvenal. To wit:

"You used to be sane enough -- what
Fury's got into you, what snake has stung you up?
Why endure when rope's available
By the fathom, when all those dizzying top-floor windows
Are open for you, when there are bridges handy to jump from?
Supposing none of the exits catches
Your fancy, isn't it better to sleep with a pretty boy?"

Perfection. Read and learn; go and do.

For a brief respite, see Julian Bream playing a Bach fugue on Youtube:

Bream and John Williams playing Debussy in duet is also worth taking in!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spUT-2tU2Yk

Bloglady:

It is pretty apparent that the chrome on the ball hitch of your mind is flaking off. Do you drink? If not, perhaps you should.

This thread is so off topic; people can't stick to the issue because they are too busy huffing and puffing with their own religious views, which they think everyone else must adopt.
Susan, you are exactly correct in your post. Clearly, people think, "Oh, they're just trying to help people, let them get these funds." And that is completely wrong. Federal money is different than money they fleece--indeed churches that exist primarily as fund raisers and nothing more--PTL?--should be treated as businesses if they do any money-making activities past a certain amount. "Faith based" needs to leave the government money list--would ANY other organization that openly discriminated in both hiring and policies be allowed? No. Would it be sued? Yes. but Obama's foot-dragging here is no worse than his foot-dragging on everything else--all talk, all general, vague talk--and no action.

Daniel12,

Thee:
"Science better than myth? Science better than religion? Not yet. And not to be known in our lifetimes."

Ovations for the briefer posts, Daniel12. Yet, hominem te memento.

Just as History = Necromancy, Science = Myth.

And that we can *know* right *now*, no?

Thee:"I think the whole Harley-Davidson biker thing pretty ridiculous--those "rebels" all glommed on to one another moving about like a school of metal fish."

Nice work. But we wouldn't say it to their faces, eh? Else we might lose our own, more than metaphorically.

Speaking truth to glower...

Method of putting a decisive end to racism in the United States: A group of people wrest power from current governmental process and state a few brutal but intelligent laws.

1) If one wants to have children one must marry and have children by a person of a different race than one's own.

2) If one rejects this law one is either a) shot by firing squad or b) gets married to a person of one's own sex. Put an end to racism and homophobia at the same time.

3) Society must become a strict meritocracy. Always the cream of the crop of the mixed race marriages are pushed forward--given precedence. A high premium on intelligent behaviors of all types. Envy and jealousy of the more gifted ruthlessly punished. Self-sacrifice stressed as one of the greatest virtues.

4) The cream of the crop of mixed race marriages--the most gifted children--far from given a free ride. If the rest of society is to defer to the gifted the gifted must demonstrate they are worthy of such deference. The gifted forced to work much harder than the less gifted.

5) All other laws except of course the laws which have existed for millenia concerning violence subordinate to the first four.

6) No laws against the use of drugs and alcohol, excessive eating, etc.--provided one has demonstrated behavior above and beyond the call of duty to society.

7) If one cannot handle a vehicle at speeds above 120 one cannot drive. (Well, actually that one might not have to be enforced...Just a personal preference that one...)

8) One must be ruthless concerning musicians and actors--if they suck they die. (Actually that one might have to be struck from the list too...)

9) No prudishness concerning sex. Either you f*ck or die. (Actually, that one too...).

10) Ten commandments are good--provided they make sense. If a person cannot come up with ten decent commandments he or she dies. (Actually maybe that might be a bit severe...). Laws. Make them and live by them.

The human race does not know what ultimate reality is. Therefore for all science it cannot be conclusively determined if man is living a false, mythical reality or a correct, scientific one. Furthermore it still cannot be conclusively demonstrated the correct, scientific reality really is preferable over the false, mythical one--preferable in the sense of better assuring the survivability of the human race--for man has lived thousands upon thousands of years by the false, mythical view whereas science has a mere few centuries or so to boast of its success rate at helping the human race survive. Science better than myth? That cannot be known for many years. And no amount of years will conclusively enable us to determine if we are living a myth or are on the road to true reality--because we can never know true reality, such a thing is unattainable. Science better than myth? Science better than religion? Not yet. And not to be known in our lifetimes.

Ooops.

PS: When Ye perform Ye "Sermons" based on our prophetic writings; please give credit where credit is due-diligently. Even when in Ye Twitterings and FaceBookings!

Not Only Ms. Jacoby Posts but ALL Moderators threads, under our certain Monikers.

Thank-a-Shaem!

Last Note:

ALL, EVERY & ANY so-called BIBLES/Chumash, Quran/Korans, Geeta/Kangyurs... needs their own "CORRECTION OF SINS/CURSES" , acts, behaviours etc.. therein, however , consciously or unconsciously, which was wrongly written or misrecorded by their Prophets/Seers or agents etc.. (categorically, literally,...) or tribaly told then rehashed into the 'Grape-Vine' of [a certain] Society.

SYMBOLS (Physical) & SUPERSTITIONS (Mind) are like grasping a Baby Blanket (i.e., Mazooza, Cross, Stars, Eucharist...) & watching cartoons (i.e., Bible/Quran/Geeta..) via their Graphic terrors).

CHILDISH! This GODLY-JEALOUSY & FEARING stuff (Superstupistitiousness) is All so so grown-upplee CHILDISH! Men acting like boys & Womans acting like girls LOST in [some one elses] Translations!

WORSHIPING, jealously Hasling... over a Name For my-god System.

O' LORD, O' HOLY-NO-MAN; O' Almighty EKLAHTi,

please HOLY-NO-MAN/WOMB, DO-NOT forgive THEM, for they-Know What-They-DO'th! They Trespass with fork tongues with more trick & tribulations than [their, not OUR] god INTENT'd!! THEY know not what they Worship!

Keep Four/4 things in mind:

1) Birth is being born via Miracle, We are NOT born in Sin (maybe Ye art, never Us).

2) Earth , aka the real "HEAVEN", belongs to US , not to you! And BLESSETH Earth, no pope, rabbi, immam, priest...is Needed to blesseth "IT", is a S.pace S.hip begot from OUR holy cosmic NEBULA, in Miracle not ever intended in any Sin...

3) OUR "G-D" is called an "IT" neither a "HE" nor a "SHE"! Not Mr. Moses, not Mr. Jesus, Not Mr. Muhammad, not Mr. VYASA & surely not via Mr. Buddha & CO! and

4) All, Every & Any Bible/Chumash, Quran/Koran or Geeta/Kangyurs.. are infact "NOT-MADE-IN-AMERICA"! All are Imported on this blesseth Land.

Never Forget CHURCH folks; That it was/is the SECULARISTS, Agnostics, Atheists & Quasi Deists, together; whom SAVED AMERICA! Not a Specific Religion, CULTure or SECTion! The HUMAN-RACE's Blood, sweat & tears, not licensed jealous theologians, gets the Credit!

T H E M O D E R A T E:

"Ricidivism" happens. A Drug addict is clasified as a deseased person whom can potentialy relapse , especially if hath no SUPPORT/intimacy/care around; not dementiated. (many are burnt-out or have Low IQ's) The PAROL & PROBATION's one on one supervision [man made; not god made] 'SYSTEM' has been known to strains , but more strained is Today's

2.2 Million Prisoners & the Prison-Houses they'r in. If ye hath been listening Recently there was some Riots involving so-called 'Disgruntled-Prisoners'. Note: There is a 'Deeper Prophecy' to there voices than meets the unsuspecting publics ear!

Note again: Eventhough many of the Prison houses and their accompaning "Puss-Holes' (ajail within jail; i.e., Solitary Confinement, aka the Hole..) are overflowing or cramped, like some schools Rooms, that the "White Folks" commit the most Grusome, herendis Godless crimes imaginable; NOT THe BLACK folks.

The Black folk, like their 'ADRENALIN-Rush's" differently or rather commit Crimes of Passion differently to: FACTually & STATISTIACLLY speaking.

i.e., the recent 'CENSUS" Bureau Worker who got Hung and....... PUKE! Or that Girl who was knocked-up & held for 18 years by a white man. ala Pale-Pace, aka White-Cracker...! So

Our National SOCIETY [equates to our ECONOMY] currently has alot on the plate & much cut-out for it. The Prison System Needs a Fixing also, not only banks, car makers, NGO's, churches etc..

REMEMBER; The Prisoners! Remember JOHN the Baptist got his Head choped-off; and the other JOHN died in Potnus Prison dungens..... Soo, Do not Cast Stones so quickly nor make judgment nor Call the kettle Black lalala!

Malcolm was a prisoner. Also Malory and Gramsci. Don't know if they would have qualified for Mensa, certain they wouldn't have joined.

S C H A U M:

You wrote, "Prison inmates are, by and large, not noted for membership in Mensa..."

REPLY: All Abrahamic Bibles includes Vedic systems, [like Chumash/Bible, Quran/Koran, Geeta/Kangyurs] FROM: Beginning TO: End; is written by-between-and-about-Prisoners, Kiillers, Prostitutes, Slaves and their holy endowed Traders.... Note: Today still Many suckers are born not only every minute but every 25 seconds.

You also wrote, ".. one would expect to find a comparatively high level of belief in (a forgiving) god in prison."

REPLY: IT's called "CLOSURE" with Self & or with Victims, if any. And EDUCATION; acsually KEEPING-BUSY is key(Procrastination is the Thief of ones precious time, even in Prison) AND

Education or like Prez Abe Lincoln [Pbu Him et al] Did at uncle Toms Cabin, by being "Self-Taught" is most important.

There is HOPE even in /at Death-Row awaiting Execution. And hence; a Mind is really a terrible thing to wastee.

Like his HON. Justice Warren BURGER [pbu Him et al] & Ex-CIA Director, once said,

"If We deny a man the chance and the right TO-CHANGE; then the burden of our civilization lies on everyones Hands; not the Prisoners" [Similarly DICTUM'd].

Remember & never Forget: Rabbi Moses was/is a Murderer under Pharoah RULE; Rabbi Jesus was a Ceasar Prisoner arrested for turning over peoples Tables [Vandelism/theft/wreckless endangerment]in Anger and then saying he was KING OF THe Judeo-abe-Ju's. Mr. Muhammad also, like Moses is/was a Murderer or atleast had blood on his hands and or personally cimmited crimes against HUMANITY (of them times). Mr. VYASA too was a WAR Blessing perpetrator. And Mr. Buddha followed suit, especially wanting to End All RE-BIRTHS because they say its a Curse/Sin to be Alive again Suffering.....

"2. Do the prisoners he ministers to benefit in any way, with softer treatment or a record of early releases?"

Recidivism rates? Any data?

Jedrothwell1 wrote:

"I would like to see an atheist "ministry" in which prisoners are exposed to atheism, science, evolutionary theory, and rigorous logic. Criminals and prisoners have a much level of belief in God than the general population and far higher than atheists..."

Belief in god requires no more mental effort (or acumen) than belief in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. Prison inmates are, by and large, not noted for membership in Mensa. Therefore, one would expect to find a comparatively high level of belief in (a forgiving) god in prison.

Expecting these same persons to embrace the complexities of atheism, science, evolutionary theory, and/or logic (rigorous or not) seems, to me, to be hoping against all hope.

But its a noble thought.

There have been no further comments from Prison Ministry Pres. Earley. Perhaps Jacoby should contact him.

It may be true that the Ministry received no federal money after the lawsuit in Iowa that cut funding. Earley did not mention money from the state government of Texas. So technically, his claims here may be correct. But it is clear that he wanted federal funding and he was happy to accept it before Iowa. Evidently he sees nothing unconstitutional, unethical, or bad for his Ministry about accepting government money. I would like to see Earley address these larger issues. Not whether at the moment he is funded by the government or for that matter whether the prisoners he ministers to have wide screen televisions but rather: --

1. Does he want government money? Would he accept it? Does he favor government funds for religious organizations?

2. Do the prisoners he ministers to benefit in any way, with softer treatment or a record of early releases?

It seems likely to me that the prisoners do benefit, because most people, including most parole board members, approve of religion and think it is good for you. So they would be inclined to treat "born again" prisoners leniently. Whether these prisoners are sincere or not I cannot judge, but I expect some of them are gaming the system by pretending to believe in fundamentalist religion.

I would like to see an atheist "ministry" in which prisoners are exposed to atheism, science, evolutionary theory, and rigorous logic. Criminals and prisoners have a much level of belief in God than the general population and far higher than atheists and people in atheistically inclined geographic areas in the U.S. and Europe. So I expect a strong dose of enlightenment philosophy and atheism would do more to rehabilitate criminals than religion does. It would interesting to find out.

My late mother worked with nonviolent women prisoners in the state of Maryland, and won an award from the governor for her efforts. I have a large collection of letters they sent her. There is no mention of religion in the letters and I cannot imagine she brought up the subject. She was a mild Unitarian if anything, which I suppose fundamentalists would consider tantamount to being an atheist. It is clear from the letters that she rehabilitated them and gave them back their lives with what she and I consider surefire methods: she taught them how to read and how to think for themselves. I consider the latter more or less the opposite of fundamentalist religion. I have no objection whatever to religions that coexist happily with rationalism and science, such as Unitarianism and many Buddhist sects.

Farnaz:

""Dubliners" James Joyce"

Read it back in the day! I particularly remember one of the stories..."Counterparts".

Farnaz:

"Maybe you need to get out more? :}"

No doubt!

And then there is this:

"Dubliners" James Joyce

Highly recommended for every good reason.

Schaum,

I've never encountered that level of stupidity in an articulate female.
------------------------
Maybe you need to get out more? :}

Another excellent source on the topic. Are you familiar with his work? Quite the gadfly...

/www.nambla.org/historical.htm

Schaum,

Good to know. More and more, historians are referencing literary works. Of course, they have always sought texts, but this turning to literature is fairly recent.

The references in medieval plays, which, were not, of course, deemed literary, but religious, are numerous, generally delivered with humor, but the humor was clearly a way to protest. This is seen in context, as the characters are almost always in opposition to the anti-Christ Church.

They oppose the established clergy, not Christ.

Farnaz:

"Do you recall whether he references literary works?"

PROFUSELY, as I recall.

TTWSY,

Love, deep and committed, between two human beings is a very, very good thing.

Farnaz:

TTWSY is possibly not a man? Thats interesting. I've never encountered that level of stupidity in an articulate female. I guess there's a first for everything.

I rather think TTWSY will suffer the same fate as Humpty Dumpty...and be equally impossible to repair.

Schaum,

Thanks, I'll look into it. Do you recall whether he references literary works?

Farnaz:

"Can you say more about the book you mention?"

Sure. Author is Michael Goodich. The book just places homosexuality in a historical perspective by exploring the different attitudes toward gays/homosexuality in the later Middle Ages. The RCC view of homosexuality was consistent, of course -- Gregorian reforms and all that -- but as the book illustrates very clearly, there was an enormous gap between the sexual behavior of medieval christers and their official dogma.

You may be familiar with Goodich...he was a senior lecturer in Medieval History at university of Haifa.

Hi Schaum,

I stand corrected re fish and trees! Great artists dwell among us!

On the medieval church and pedophilia: there is reference to it in European plays, these performed by the locals everywhere. It is also referenced in Chaucer.

The way it figures is what's interesting from a literary point of view.

Can you say more about the book you mention?

Farnaz:

"Actually, some Middle Ages works contain references to monks, friars, and their penchant for little boys."

Truly. A book entitled "The Unmentionalble Vice" is quite specific about those activities in the church.

Farnaz:

I don't understand what you mean. The tree and fish posts are still here...

Not sure TTWSY is a man. Actually, some Middle Ages works contain references to monks, friars, and their penchant for little boys.

Trees and fish are gone. They go together in Jonah.

Did we follow up with JJ's links on Colson, et al.?

Jed Rothwell posts also raise questions.

TTSWYetc....

You are a complete idiot. There have been gay priests AND popes since the founding of the church.

Priests (and therefore Popes) were not required to be celibate until the eleventh century, and some took full advantage. John XII-a bisexual pope who held orgies in the papal palace. Benedict IX-a homosexual pope who also enjoyed hosting orgies. Alexander VI-a bisexual pope who was not going to let his fun be spoiled just because he became pope after celibacy became mandatory. He fathered at least 8 children and had many male lovers. Julius III-a homosexual pope who respected his vow of celibacy, but had a male lover before taking that vow. Paul II-Possible transsexual pope? His tendency to wear lavish and feminine clothing earned him the nickname "Our Lady of Pity.

You are the twisted result of a twisted religion, Roman Catholicism -- a religious cancer which should be abolished.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1:

To you, I would say that the interesting thing about this is how many people who decry promiscuity in the gay community also fanatically oppose gay marriage. How say you on that?

To the rest of you, I suggest you read And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts to learn about behavior of Patient Zero in context before you go ballistic.

"Dunno about Jonah, but I do try to speak truly. And my journey is by no means over."

It just seemed a good joke one after JJ's fish swallowing you and SHAUm. Besides, Who knows what you will be able to do after coming of the fish three days later. :^))

DITLD:

What do you want to bet that TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 would be a much improved, clearer-sighted man if he spent a couple of hours in the dark backroom of a gay bar with a couple of dominant gay bikers? The pheromones would do him so much good.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 is a big, stupid, homophobic, muscle-headed moron who is eat-up with Jesus, a giant of a man in his own mind, a little pip-squeak to everyone else.

(Oops! Did DITLD say that? Slap my wrist; I went over the line this time, didn't I?)

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1: "Because of the social pressure from the left and the 1973 American Psychiatric Association’s removal of homosexuality from the official manual that listed mental and emotional disorders, the Church gave in to the left and allowed gay oriented candidates to become priest. That mistake fermented the pedophile priest scandals that fomented a cacophony from the anti-religious iconoclasts and troglodytes dregs of society who surfaced from their swamps and from under their rocks to condemn the whole Church."

------------------

I see, so if it weren't for some post-1973 leftists and the American Psychiatric Association there wouldn't have ever been any homosexually oriented priests and there wouldn't have ever been any abuse? Interesting. And, even if there were, people wouldn't be blaming the church if it weren't for a bunch of atheistic cavemen -- possibly from Louisiana?!?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that sex abuse has probably occurred in religious and secular institutions from their inceptions and that the Catholic Church is no better, or worse, in this regard than any other institution. What this apostate finds curious, however, is that this abuse occurred in a religious institution that proclaims to be intimately guided by a Holy Spirit, is supposedly awash in more kinds of grace than one can shake a crosier at, by men who claim to represent Jesus H. Christ, himself.

If the best that God can do for his "one, true Church" is to make it no better than any other institution, what is it again that makes you guys so special?

Moderate,

"Be well my friend, and consider well the lessons of Jonah who was swallowed by a fish: speak the truth wherever you may arrive. There may be a reason for the journey you have undergone."

Well, that threw me for a bit of a loop. Dunno about Jonah, but I do try to speak truly. And my journey is by no means over.

And you, too, be well, friend.

Arminius,

Be well my friend, and consider well the lessons of Jonah who was swallowed by a fish: speak the truth wherever you may arrive. There may be a reason for the journey you have undergone.

"Not to worry. It seems a night for humor. :^) No doubt, someone will complain soon."

Most probably it will be Mr Alphabet Soup, aka TTWSwhatever.

Not to worry. It seems a night for humor. :^) No doubt, someone will complain soon.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
RELIGIOUS FAITH BASED?

IRT
"The George W. Bush expanded the programs to bolster his standing with the religious right, and President Obama is just as beholden to the religious left. To require any religious institution to hire people who do not agree with and represent its principles is absurd. That is why the government should not be in the business of funneling money for social services through any faith-based organization, whatever its hiring practices."

ANS:
George Bush didn't expand faith based programs to bolster his standing with the religious right, he expanded the programs because he was a real person who cared about people and the use of religious organizations were a perfect way to aid the needy; that‘s what they do. That’s something radicals can’t understand. Charity for them is helping the poor murder their babies or defending gay sex that has victimized some 26 million with death and infected some 35 million worldwide with HIV.

For example, Bush wanted to help the Africans who are plagued with an AIDS epidemic. No organization in the world helps AIDS victims more than the Catholic Dream program, and Bush expanded the aid to help these victims to the Dream program.

In a similar episode of allowing divisive and adverse lifestyles to trespass on an organization's sacred beliefs, the radical left had charged the Catholic Church with gender and civil rights discrimination for not allowing women and gays to be priests.

Because of the social pressure from the left and the 1973 American Psychiatric Association’s removal of homosexuality from the official manual that listed mental and emotional disorders, the Church gave in to the left and allowed gay oriented candidates to become priest. That mistake fermented the pedophile priest scandals that fomented a cacophony from the anti-religious iconoclasts and troglodytes dregs of society who surfaced from their swamps and from under their rocks to condemn the whole Church.

Allowing divisive lifestyles and anti-religious into religious and charitable workforces only impugns the integrity of the organizations, and makes them a target of the philistines on the left to vilify them. Moreover, there is no discrimination of services funded by the government or charitable funding at least in Catholic services, so what’s the problem?

To Lion's Den from Daniel. You might find it strange, but I probably do understand your viewpoint on race. I too do not like to be around racist white people. I pretty much think them stupid. And the whole redneck thing bothers me. And I think the whole Harley-Davidson biker thing pretty ridiculous--those "rebels" all glommed on to one another moving about like a school of metal fish.

And really I doubt there is anything anyone can do about any racial problem except try to keep races and ethnic groups at bay. No one seriously thinks an answer is killing people except the stupid. And keeping people at bay is no answer. The best answer it seems to me is have the most intelligent people in the world forced to work 80 hour work weeks and financed all to hell to solve the most pressing problems such as climate change, food production, proliferation of WMD, etc. SUPPOSING THE MAJOR PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED IT MATTERS LITTLE IF THE RACE MIXING IN THE WORLD TAKES US BACKWARD OR FORWARD, FOR WE WILL BE SAFE UNTIL THINGS WORK OUT AND THE HUMAN RACE BECOMES MORE ENLIGHTENED.

As for America changing, nothing can be done about that. I obviously have demonstrated more than a will to resist such a thing, but on the other hand, what the hell. But there is one thing about all the non-racists in the world which bothers me. I believe the problem of race is much greater than the non-racists believe. I really do believe that black people and Hispanics are less intelligent, and for non-racists not to recognize that is to just be behind in attempts to be humane and solve the race problem.

In other words I believe the non-racists are not humane enough. They think there really is no race problem other than just getting races to accept each other. I think there are clear differences between races and not to be more humane than the typical non-racist is to be caught off guard and just be threatened with a reinforced sense of racism which should have just faded away. In other words, the non-racists should be more than prepared to face the problem of racism. They should overshoot in their humanity because I believe differences (especially because of the genetic sciences) will come out. I hope that makes my position clearer. Really I do not think I can be understood unless all I have written is read--to see that I just think about this and then think about that. I definitely try not to get bogged down in any one thing. And thanks for the humane reply.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
RELIGIOUS FAITH BASED?

IRT
"The George W. Bush expanded the programs to bolster his standing with the religious right, and President Obama is just as beholden to the religious left. To require any religious institution to hire people who do not agree with and represent its principles is absurd. That is why the government should not be in the business of funneling money for social services through any faith-based organization, whatever its hiring practices."

ANS:
George Bush didn't expand faith based programs to bolster his standing with the religious right, he expanded the programs because he was a real person who cared about people and the use of religious organizations were a perfect way to aid the needy; that‘s what they do. That’s something radicals can’t understand. Charity for them is helping the poor murder their babies or defending gay sex that has victimized some 26 million with death and infected some 35 million worldwide.

For example, Bush wanted to help the Africans who are plagued with an AIDS epidemic. No organization in the world helps AIDS victims more than the Catholic Dream program, and Bush expanded the aid to help these victims to the Dream program.

In a similar episode of allowing divisive and adverse lifestyles to trespass on an organization's sacred beliefs, the radical left had charged the Catholic Church with gender and civil rights discrimination for not allowing women and gays to be priests.

Because of the social pressure from the left and the 1973 American Psychiatric Association’s removal of homosexuality from the official manual that listed mental and emotional disorders, the Church gave in to the left and allowed gay oriented candidates to become priest. That mistake fermented the pedophile priest scandals that fomented a cacophony from the anti-religious iconoclasts and troglodytes dregs of society who surfaced from their swamps and from under their rocks to condemn the whole Church.

Allowing divisive lifestyles and anti-religious into religious and charitable workforces only impugns the integrity of the organizations, and makes them a target of the philistines on the left to vilify them. Moreover, there is no discrimination of services funded by the government or charitable funding at least in Catholic services, so what’s the problem?

Moderate,

"That's The Filioque in most parts, dude. :-)"

Oops... Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! (grovels and begs forgiveness...)

Seriously, I really should have known better.

Daniel ITLD,

"Isn't the state motto of Wisconsin "Eat cheese or die"?"

The unofficial motto, and more accurate than the official one for sure!

"I did not know that about filioque."

That's The Filioque in most parts, dude. :-)

For Arminius

Isn't the state motto of Wisconsin "Eat cheese or die"?

Noodlioque? Well now there is a topic for discussion as it is more universally Pastafarian than the specific species of pasta such as Farfalle, and Foglie d'ulivo. The more specific phraseology might invite yet another doctrinal schism among Pastafarian gourmands, so your point is well taken/

For Daniel12

I would like to answer you seriously. I am not mad at you, and I am not looking down on you or mocking you or trying to give you a hard time.

I am a white person, but I do not consider white people to be "my people." I consider my heritage to be the dominant heritage in American culture, and history, and therfore, nothing that troubles me or bothers me, nothing that I need ever think or worry about.

If you had seen and known some of the Southern White people who dominated southern culture up until recent times, you would not think so highly of "White people" as a race. Where I am from, being white is not really anything to be proud of, but sometimes, maybe somethng to be ashamed of. and to cross these very, very bad people, also made me their enemy, just the same as if I were "colored" as they used to say.

Thankfully, their dominance in Southern culture has faded, but not superceded by ethnic minorities, but just by a better class of "white people."

I am WASP, but WASP is not really an ethnic group. It is the dominating influence in America. All other ethnic groups only have a defined "existence" in comparision to WASP culture. I am WASP, and yes, I will say it: WASPS are just a little drab and boring. I think that other non-WASP people are interesting and fascinating to me, not because they really are all that better than WASP's but because they are just different from my own experience, and therefore, interesting.

I am well-aware that a sense of racial superiorty exists in some people amoung all the many ethnic groups of the world, and it is not just something in American white people. But THE racial problem in Americas is not black racism against white people; that sentiment is disenguous. I have never felt it, or perceived it. Every person that has ever threatened me was a white person.

I am a white person, and I just plain do not care what the ethnic break-out of America will be in 40 years. I just don't. That is how I feel; that is formed sentiment of my inner will, and nothing that you have ever posted here has even come close to changing that inner will.

Moderate,

I did not know that about filioque. Well, as the old saying goes, ya learns sumpin ev'ry day.

Are you perhaps hinting that the word should have been noodlioque?

The Nicene Creed as recited in the Western Empire contains the Filioque. It was the subject of intensive controversy between the Eastern Empire Orthodox and the Western Empire Catholics.

In Latin:

"Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum, et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit."

More recently translated:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Filioque is not part of the original Creed adopted by the First Council of Constantinople in 381

Er, Moderate,

farfalloque?
foglieoque?

Huh? Say what?

Or was that the foglieoque? Another theological debate.

But what of the farfalloque?

Moderate,

""The communion of the Pastafarians, those blessed followers of His Noodliness, is spaghetti and beer."

But is the Holy FSM physically present in the noodles?"

No way! He's got more sense, but He is there, watching.

Part one.

To Lion's Den from Daniel. You wrote in your last post concerning the Republican party: It is almost all white, almost 100% white. Don't non-racist Republicans find that odd?

There is something else which is odd as well. The demographic prediction is that by 2050 white people will be less than fifty percent of the U.S. population--meaning all other races, ethnic groups combined will be the majority. Name any other country in the world which is going through that transformation. Name any other country which has survived having its majority population become the minority. Name any other country which would not mind such a thing happening to itself.

Tell me, what African nation would not become racist as whites and other races, ethnic groups became the majority in that nation? In other words, reverse the picture. Picture any other nation's majority going through what is occurring in America and try to tell me that majority would not become racist or at least extremely resentful and frightened.

As for the non-racism of all other races and ethnic groups than white in America, that is a ridiculous statement. Blacks try desperately to advance their race, taking anyone with black blood for black--even if the person has a miniscule amount. Obama half white the big champion of the black race. And Latinos, they advance themselves the best they can, and do the same as blacks, consider anyone with Latino blood Latino. And take the Jews. The Jews constantly crying antisemitism have any children by Jews and another race or ethnic group considered Jewish--and they have Israel determined to remain easily majority Jewish. Go ask Israel if it would be pleased to be going through what America is going through.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
RELIGIOUS FAITH BASED?

IRT
"Absolutely not. But this question cuts to the heart of the unconstitutionality of all government-supported faith-based programs since Bill Clinton inadvisably opened the door to a violation of the First Amendment that would have been inconceivable in earlier periods of American history."

ANS:
I wonder what history books you’ve been reading, when ever was the door closed until just recently. Religious charity and government have been a part of our Judeo-Christian heritage since the colonization of Jamestown and the 13 original colonies.

The First Amendment has only recently been distorted by the Courts in the mid and late 60s early 70s after our Court couldn’t figure out what pornography and obscenity was. Then the Court legalized the murder of the unborn in '73.

As recently as June 2002, the Court ruled the legality of schools vouchers to private and religious schools. Moreover, it wasn’t until 2005 in Lawrence v. Texas, that the Court overturned Bowers and ruled that traditional moral values cannot be a basis for Civil law, and that traditional moral values served no legitimate purpose to the State. It was just in 2007 when the Court launched a major assault on the Ten Commandments, the universal basic moral laws that are fundamental principles for all Civil Law.

Part two.

The fact is not a single race or ethnic group in America is any better than the whites. In fact we constantly hear that the entire history of Western civilization is nothing but a bunch of dead white males. And no man is scorned more in America today than the white man. The white man either becomes a sensitive lefty and cares not a whit that he is becoming a minority in the nation that he created or he is a backward racist fully deserving of being despised.

And I consider it a personal insult that a white man such as myself would be taken for the "big racist" in the world as if no other race does the same. I consider it a personal insult that the white man--the man who has virtually created everything we mean by modern civilization--is considered the "backward bigot animal" in our world in which everyone else is so "racially enlightened".

Examine your own race in relationship to other races before you leave us with your judgement. The fact is you have done nothing but buy in to the common parlance that only whites are racist and either they remain racist or become the "good left wingers" and allow all other races and ethnic groups to overwhelm them. And why this state of affairs has occurred in America is because of one of the founding values of the nation, namely that the nation is a place that welcomes anyone.

A founding value no other nation has at its root. A founding value no one questions apparently, although no other nation has had as its project becoming a synthesis of anyone and everyone. Try reading some history before you make your judgements. Again, I personally resent being called a racist for my observations rooted in fact. I resent people telling me I hate certain people because of their skin, as if that is my problem--when I observe another fact which calls that into question, namely that Indians (from India) in America do better in school on average than whites. Indians which often have skin as black as blacks.

But of course I should not have replied to you at all. My arguments can only make me move further into the territory of being racist--in fact he who makes the most plausible arguments is the biggest racist of all. So be it. I am one of the biggest racists of all.

Arminius,

"The communion of the Pastafarians, those blessed followers of His Noodliness, is spaghetti and beer."

But is the Holy FSM physically present in the noodles?

The tree stand is off center, too.

WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH

Pleazzzza. Be "Creative" Show THIS Blogg some art. Can You Wow Us? Lets see how smart ye really are. i [WE] art Waiting Walter!

PS: WE are not even gonna click on your zero-blogerArt links.

Note: Sun hath set; time to have Privacy with me NEUTRINO's.

Feeeeeeelllll them Photons inside & outside of YE via All "IT"s miraculous things & "IT"s elegent Stuffs!

Note: OUR LORD/ALMIGHTY, by manymanymany names is Never a HE nor a SHE! Only an "IT"! A Miracle in Holy Cosmic Motion. From A NEBULANIC Holy blesseth occurence.

Hence: Sex is not LOVE; LIFE is LOVE! "IT" is LOVE! So

LOVE Ye Photons while Ye can Mr. Walter & CO.!

here's a tree i made.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58171957@N00/2093162705/

others:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58171957@N00/

cyber-man, you said,
".........................,……...…............
..........................,#,……................
........................,###,…............
.......................,#####,..................
.....................,#######,.................
.......................,#####,....................
.....................,#######,................
...................,#########,...............
.................,###########,.............
...................,#########,.................
................,###########,..............
..............,#############,.............
............,###############,...............
...........,#jj##############,................
........................_|_…….....................
........................\._./……………………….."

that tree is crooked...no ornaments?

you can do better.

Moderate,

The Prandalists worship the Great Trencherman BIG CHEESE, whose holy temple is in.... your favorite restaurant.

The communion of the Pastafarians, those blessed followers of His Noodliness, is spaghetti and beer.

themoderate:
"Does that breakaway sect enjoy the sacramental elements of bread and cheese, or just the heretical garlic bread with their Spaghetti?"

this matter was laid to rest eons ago with the advent of parmesan. pastafarians (myself included) may now freely enjoy cheese.

.........................,……...…............
..........................,#,……................
........................,###,…............
.......................,#####,..................
.....................,#######,.................
.......................,#####,....................
.....................,#######,................
...................,#########,...............
.................,###########,.............
...................,#########,.................
................,###########,..............
..............,#############,.............
............,###############,...............
...........,#jj##############,................
........................_|_…….....................
........................\._./………………………..

-
A CEDER TREE from the LEVANT!

Yea verily I say unto thee that even Latter Day Prandialists have a friend in Cheeses.

But what of the Pastafarians? Does that breakaway sect enjoy the sacramental elements of bread and cheese, or just the heretical garlic bread with their Spaghetti? And when it flies do they claim it to be a sacred food fight or the miraculous?

arminius3142,
As to fish, I absolutely love it, but don't eat much of it due mostly to my concern with the overfishing that is so rampant.

fish farms.....

humans hare so darn good at hunting fish that we've destroyed several fish ecosystems. not to mention the horrible "bottom-scraping" crustacean hunting we do. we need more earth-worshippers...

must prandialists confine themselves to brunch (my favorite meal, besides steak...)theology? perhaps advanced post-prandials apply theory more broadly.

i love trees too!

my daughter is doing a report on redwood trees. freaks of nature, those redwoods.

I thought maybe just a tree?

Moderate:

The early Prandial mystics of blessed memory PBUT (Peace Be Upon Them), RIP, etc.,
did, as you aver, preserved not only esoteric dairy but also grape knowledge.

"Man shall eat bread, cheese, and also wine. Those who are not yet with us will add tomato sauce and spice--to the bread and cheese, that is. Only the non-Culinaries will yearn for peperoni, and thus you will know them."

As an American Prandialist of the 21st century, I wonder that Prandialists, when dining out, must pay taxes on any wine, cheese, and bread they may eat therein (or thereout)

Me Dearest Persian Princess & Co:

Besides Happy-Everyday;

i [WE] will dazzle the Bloggers-world for You, me sweet; with more art, such that not even a Jealous Christian hath ever seen not heard of before? AND

Me Dear Lady ; If Ye want a Fish on top of a Tree; Then Your Wish is Me Command! [A New Years Gift].

PS: Problem is now these Predators (Hijackers of Other Peoples intellectual-Property, Patents etc..) will steal our fish, like Our Judeo-abe-JUish Religion, and hath nerve to claim "IT" as their own, yet want to Kill Us; as Freudiantly slipped herein & there; FASTASHE/MAVINE?!

PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHALAOM, ZHINGYU, AHIMSA, FREIDEN....

KOODHA AFHEZ!

Farnaz,

The tree indeed is a symbol from the ages. I happen to revere trees myself. Looking forward to your result.

As to fish, I absolutely love it, but don't eat much of it due mostly to my concern with the overfishing that is so rampant.

Arminius,

The fish is a good Christian symbol, yes. I don't like to eat fish, but that is a nonsectarian issue. I have issues with bones.

But fascination with trees is universal, pre-Judaism. I believe it may have begun with the Prandials.

"I like the fish. I'm going to try it. Actually, I'd like to do a tree. But I'm going to start with a fish."

Well, then, it is a good Christian symbol to start with.

I like the fish. I'm going to try it. Actually, I'd like to do a tree. But I'm going to start with a fish. (On word)

Walter,

Re: Offense

I didn't mean that you had no knowledge but that WE did not share a knowledge base. My comments were rushed, so maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been

.....................................................................................
.....O.......……………………,/////////////……………..........,/..
..0.........………,……..__,---///////////////////,…..............,/././..

0............…………,-'.. ). ). ). ). ). ).''///////_\…........../././././ ..
....O.......……_,-' ))`.. ) .) .). ) .) .) .). ). ).)..`-......././././././

............…/..(
♠)_).
).).).).\. ) .). ) .). ). ). ) .). )__././././././././ .
............…\____ ).).).).).). ). ). ). ). ) .). ). ).__.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\...
..{-SHAUm
ARMINIUS;> |.))). )./.). ). ) ) .). )_/,-’__.\.\.\.\.\..
............…..___,').),'). ). ). ). )_),,--'……………...\.\.\.\.\.\ …
............….(_______............\.\)_),--'"……………...`\.\.\.\ ...
............……………….-.........\.\.\……………………...`\.\.\ ..
............……,…………...........\.\.\……………….............`\.
.............................................................................................
Ukkkkkkkkkkkkk Disssssgguuuuusssttng Puuuweee

Arminius:

Fool is an understatement. The idiot didn't even spell my name correctly.

Schaum,

Observe Cyber-man's latest offering, a fish consuming the two of us. Now you have an idea of what he is. Still no use in replying, waste of time. Fools should be ignored.

globalone wrote:

"In my review of these posts, I find no response from Ms. Jacoby to the President of Prison Fellowship.
Interesting? Expected?
You make the call."

Jacoby has a policy of not responding here. She may respond next week in her column. (Note that this week she responded to last week's letters.)

A few searches with Google indicates that the Prison Fellowships Ministry may have received federal government funding in addition to the program cited by the Ministry Pres. Earley in Iowa. See:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041101/kaplan/3

QUOTE:

"Chuck Colson--who had legal troubles of his own stemming from Watergate--was another significant beneficiary, through his evangelical organization Prison Fellowship Ministries, which was chosen by the faith-based office as one of only four national partners for a $22.5 million workplace re-entry program for ex-offenders."

I have not found independent confirmation of this.

The ministry received Texas state funding in 2002. Here is an official state document:

http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/PubSafety_CrimJustice/6_Links/IFI.pdf

QUOTE:

"This report presents an overview of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI) program in
Texas. This is a faith-based, pre-release program operated by Prison Fellowship Ministries
through a contract with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ)."

Unless this is a different organization with the same name, Earley is being disingenuous.

.....................................................................................
.....O.......……………………,/////////////……………..........,/..
..0.........………,……..__,---///////////////////,…..............,/././..
0............…………,-'.. ). ). ). ). ). ).''///////_\…........../././././ ..
....O.......……_,-' ))`.. ) .) .). ) .) .) .). ). ).)..`-......././././././
............…/..(♠)_).).).).).\. ) .). ) .). ). ). ) .). )__././././././././ .
............…\____ ).).).).).). ). ). ). ). ) .). ). ).__.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\...
..{-SHAUmARMINIUS;> |.))). )./.). ). ) ) .). )_/,-’__.\.\.\.\.\..
............…..___,').),'). ). ). ). )_),,--'……………...\.\.\.\.\.\ …
............….(_______............\.\)_),--'"……………...`\.\.\.\ ...
............……………….-.........\.\.\……………………...`\.\.\ ..
............……,…………...........\.\.\……………….............`\.
.............................................................................................
Ummummmm..2..For..1...Yummmmmmeeeee...

globalone,
"In my review of these posts, I find no response from Ms. Jacoby to the President of Prison Fellowship.
Interesting? Expected?
You make the call."

disappointing. we'll see though.

farnaz,
"No offense, but this is a senseless discussion. Go to any Islamic Center and ask about abortion."

i agree it is senseless...because, i think we're actually in agreement: there is more "doctrine" in judeochrislam (you might not call it that), as practiced, than can be found in scripture. we're saying the same thing**, but you won't admit that. why?

**(unless there is scriptural discussion in the tankah about abortion, which i assume there isn't, since you didn't quote me any.)

"The Tanakh privileges human life."

"privileges human life" is too vague for what we're discussing. is there anything in there that says "no abortion" (or even, "you must have an abortion if..." as you said is "required").

"Unlike Christianity or Islam or Walteranity, it values life on earth, the living human being above all.

walterianity values life on earth way above the imaginary afterlife. walterianity, while repulsed personally by the notion of abortion, supports the right of women to have them. walterianity wants them to be "safe legal and rare", with a heavy emphasis on rational sexual education and easy access to birth control.

"I don't mind a good debate, enjoy it frankly, but there has to be some sort of shared knowledge base. In this case there is none."

oh puleeze.... this is where i take slight offense. (but don't worry, i'll get over it.) i'm hoping when you say "none", it's hyperbole. my knowledge of religions of the world is not as broad as yours, but it's not "none" either....sheesh...

so, again, i'm asking you, oh great leraned one, to share your vast knowledge base by pointing me to
1)jewish scripture that "requires" an abortion if the mother's life is in danger and
2) christian or islamic scripture that prohibits abortion.

i understand that christian and muslims today oppose abortion, but my contention is that it's not based on scripture, that's all.

rohitcuny wrote:

"'plays an important role' is a rather mild claim. After all, race played a big role in the fact the African Americans voted massively for Obama."

That is incorrect. African Americans voted massively for all Democratic candidates for president in the last 60 years. Their support for Obama was only slightly higher than for previous Democrats.

Black support for Democrats is so high already, there is no way it could be increased "massively."

Turnout in the black community was higher than normal. Perhaps this is partly because Obama is black. However, turnout by young white voters supporting Obama was also high. Turnout was high because Obama ran one of the most effective campaigns in U.S. political history, and because he inspired his supporters.

"But that does not imply that they would have voted massively for someone else who was black but incompetent. Obama's race was one factor among many."

That is true.

Regarding this week's topic, I wish that religious leaders would have enough sense to turn down federal money and dismantle the "faith based" programs. Nothing good will come of they. They are, as Jacoby said, blatantly unconstitutional.

Jacoby thinks that "no president after" Obama will dismantle them. In other words, they will last indefinitely into the future. I disagree. The power of religion ebbs and flows in the U.S. We establish government institutions, and then dismantle them. It is a myth that government programs never end and trends are never reversed. I expect in a generation or two, "faith based" programs will seem as quaint as the Prohibition or government anti-pornography and anti-contraception laws (Comstock laws).

WalterIFC:

"it applies to those in the dairy industry..."

Including gays...the Dairy Queens?

"that "cheesemakers" verse is not meant to be taken literally: it applies to those in the dairy industry..."

Of course, but some of us cheese lovers took it to heart!

Schaum, Arminus, The Moderate,
that "cheesemakers" verse is not meant to be taken literally: it applies to those in the dairy industry...

Arminius:

"Oh, and also, you can ignore Cyberman. He's been here before, under different handles, "

Another mental case. Noted, grassyass.

Schaum,

No, not the French, wrong movie! The Frenchies do make some damn good cheese, though.

Oh, and also, you can ignore Cyberman. He's been here before, under different handles, and no one has ever been able to understand him.

Arminius:

""I think he said, 'Blessed are the cheese makers.""

Surely he was not referring to the French!

Cyberman:

I have read your "citations", and unsurprisingly, they appear to be little more than speculation and conjecture. I was hoping that you could offer proof. Evidently you cannot.

Blessed are the cheese makers, that is.

"Blessed are the cheese makers."

You see, this brings the interpolation even closer to historicity.

Blessed are the cheese.

So say we all!

"man shall not live by bread alone, he also shall require cheese. Indeed, for why a man should want more than bread and cheese, if he can get enough of it?"

From Monty Python's "Life of Brian":
"What did he (Jesus) say?"
"I think he said, 'Blessed are the cheese makers."
"The cheese makers! What did he mean by that?"

In my review of these posts, I find no response from Ms. Jacoby to the President of Prison Fellowship.

Interesting? Expected?

You make the call.

"ancient saying", that is.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
RELIGIOUS FAITH BASED?

IRT:
“Dozens of major religious groups and denominations are urging Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. to renounce a Bush-era memo that allows faith-based charities that receive federal funding to discriminate in hiring. Should religious charities that receive federal grant money be allowed to discriminate in hiring?"

ANS:
Here are a few of those religious groups and denominations requesting Holder Jr.--American Association of University Women, American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Campaign, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Council of La Raza, NAACP, Lambda Legal (Lesbian civil rights org.), Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

In addition, there is the Legal Momentum, a left-wing feminist civil rights org), NA’AMAT USA (a civil rights org. for Zionist women.), the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S (whatever denomination is that?)., another religious group, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Working for Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Equal Rights (another religious group?)

When did the ACLU, University Women, Lambda Legal, National Council of La Raza, the NAACP Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Coalition on Civil Rights, and Legal Momentum, become religious organizations or denominations?

You might expect the Left to call them religious organization, denominations, and groups because they have no sense of religion and that is precisely why they shouldn’t be hired.

Many of these organizations are the anti-thesis of religion. These PC groups harbor a host of Lesbian and radical civil rights organizations that are a contradiction of the religious organizations they are attempting to infiltrate.

The Political Correct (PC) request is no more than a hypocritical ploy to further separate religious institutions from America by the PCs. Since we are in a Culture of War, Why not call the United Nations, to treat the needy. It wouldn’t be any more preposterous than trying to deny American Christian organizations from assisting the poor, which is a part of their American Christian heritage.

The Political Correct (PC) request is no more than a hypocritical ploy to further separate religious institutions from America by the PCs.

Since we are in a Culture of War, Why not call the United Nations, to treat the needy. It wouldn’t be any more preposterous than trying to deny American Christian organizations from assisting the poor, which is a part of their American Christian heritage.

To isolate Christian organizations from doing what they do best, viz. succor to the needs of others, by attempting to embarrass them is at the least asinine and hypocritical.

More so, the Pcs’ attempt to disrupt the works of these charitable oranizations is an opprobrious illustration of contempt the Pcs have for these religious organizations that are best suited to help those in distress.

"Although....truth be told, I don't know where in the Bible men were ordered to eat cheese. Do you?"

"man doth not live by bread alone "
- Deuteronomy 8: 2-3

Reiterated by Rabbi Jesus.

"It is written, that man shall not live by bread alone
- Luke 4:4

There is almost a consensus among certain contemporary scholarly exegetes that stratum 2.4.6 section IV sub paragraph (c) of the Q source reveals that among the Gnostics that cheese was understood to be the subject of this ancient . The veracity whereof is established by multiple attestations.

Thus it is now possible to interpolate the completion of this lost original form:

"man shall not live by bread alone, he also shall require cheese. Indeed, for why a man should want more than bread and cheese, if he can get enough of it?"

The Prandial mystics surely also preserved this secret knowledge, though it remained for the post prandials to understand the tax advantages that you have suggested.

Ooooppps:

Fact: Both Current or Ex Corrupt DEMOCRATs + REPUBLICANS are in Cahooch & thus got their hand caught in Fleecing Uncle-Sam & Aunt-Liberty.

Government Subsidies, Tax-Free Privilidges, Faith Based Initiatives and Organized Religious Mafios'os for Profits Enriching the GANG (Insiders) instead of Propheteerings!

Time to Prosecute the HIPOCRITS and the ROBBER BARONS!

Ye can Run'th Chucky-Boy & Co., but ye SATANIC VERSE's LOVERS con'th Hide'th!

SHAUM

Please googlegagga

On: "FAITH-BASED-GATE"

Please See this Prison Stock's "INSIDERS" list. Then Google each name like it is listed and You will Catch The SATANS committing IMMORTAL/UNETHICAL acts against Tax-Payers & HUMANITY!!!! Note: #1 starts current (2009) and #40 starts during Clinton/Gore Admin (1998):

http://www.smartmoney.com/stock-quote/?story=insiders&symbol=CXW&snStory=story&item=0

Please read: BUSINESS OF DETENTION by EVANGELICALS
http://www.businessofdetention.com/?tag=john-d-ferguson

http:// www.cjd.org/paper/private.html

Please Read 2nd:

Excerpt (Aug.2007): "... Nine faith-based programs are operated in six states — including Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and Texas — by Prison Fellowship Ministries. The organization was founded in 1976 by Charles W. Colson, former special counsel to President Richard Nixon who served seven months in a federal prison after pleading guilty to a Watergate-related charge.

“We have found it to be very effective,” said Mark Earley, former attorney general of Virginia and president of PFM. The group’s prison programs, called InnerChange Freedom Initiative, are based on Christian principles and privately funded, Earley said.

-- Wow! What a White LIE! Commingle $1.00 Dollar with $3.00 Tax Free Money!? Oh Ye Lieing Ex-Presidental SATANS!

And Please read 3rd:

By: Americans United:
http://blog.au.org/2006/08/09/prison-palaver-chuck-colson-distorts-innerchange-ruling/

Excerpt: [Jesus Diciples] "Colson and Mark Earley, president of Prison Fellowship, are very angry over that ruling – so much so that they are trying to re-litigate the case through the media." Note: Even JESUS has/had a Temper.

Walter,

No offense, but this is a senseless discussion. Go to any Islamic Center and ask about abortion.

The Tanakh privileges human life. If you don't believe me about abortion or about the moronic interpretation some have given "an eye for an eye" vs. the Judaic, ask any ordained rabbi in the known world.

What you think about Jews and the afterlife is interesting, I'm sure, in some way, to someone somewhere. In fact, Judaism has little interest in the afterlife, and that which it does have is historically recent.

Unlike Christianity or Islam or Walteranity, it values life on earth, the living human being above all.

I don't mind a good debate, enjoy it frankly, but there has to be some sort of shared knowledge base. In this case there is none.

Re: Christians and God the Father. There are Christians who believe the god of the nt is a barbaric throwback, having nothing to do with Judaism, probably a pagan relic. Human sacrifice is condemned repeatedly in Tanakh. Blood/Wine business unJudaic. Never could have happened at a last supper or first. Jews may not ingest blood. For this and many other reasons, some educated Christians/Catholics see the nt as deficient. I could go on.

However, I've posted numerous bibliographies, etc. There are libraries, web sites, etc. walteranism is not Judaism, Islam, or Christiantiy.

farnaz:
"Do you think most Christians would agree with my interpretation of the NT?

are you talking about this?
"The Christian/Catholic god was in favor of the torturing to death of his Son, his reason for being, favored the "sacrifice" of a human being."

i think all christians see jesus as the "ultimate scapegoat" (though they apply fancier appellations like "redeemer"...)

further, i would say christians (and jew and muslims) devalue life here on earth by supposing eternal life in heaven. i mean, sure, jesus suffered here on earth, but he got eternal life. sure, joshua/muhammad/crusaders behaved badly by killing (wrong-believing) people here on earth, but their reward is eternal. what's 80 years here on earth compared to eternity in heaven? this devaluing of human life here on earth figured into muhammad atta's calculations when he decided crashing into the wtc would be a good thing. this applies to any moral atrocity commited here on earth in the name of any heaven-promising god.

or did you mean this?

"No denomination of Christianity, including Catholicism equals the NT. All were influenced by the church fathers, then by later men and women. The NT says nothing about a Pope, for example, and I'll be darned if I see much on the Vatican or Vatican Bank.

indeed, there is much that is espoused by judeochrislamic people that is not in scripture - like the idea that god prohibits abortion (or "requires" it for certain jews in certain situations).

farnaz,
i'm just saying the modern church's (synagogue's, mosque's) prohibition on abortion is not based on scripture. it's based on our improving appreciation of the value of human life.

you said,
"Islam does not condone abortion. Judaism requires abortion if the mother's health or life is at risk. This has always been the case."

and i asked,
is that based on scripture? which verses? or are those "derived" doctrines? i haven't read jewish scripture except as it appears in the "o.t.", so don't know if there are "fetus" verses in there.

i don't need a 15 hour explanation, but a few scripture verses would be good - if there are any.

you say islam does not condone abortion. i ask again is that from the koran or ahadith? if so, please quote the verses, because i'm not familiar with them. if they're "derived", just say that.

you say judaism "requires" abortion if the mother's life is in danger, and that it's "always" been the case.

again, is that a scriptural injunction? it's not in the jewish books i've read (the "o.t."). i am hoping to benefit from your knowledge of the rest of jewish scripture. is there something in there that says "abortion is required in the mother's life is in danger"? if so, if you could, i'd appreciate chapter/verse citations. if it's "derived" (a la the pope, the trinity), then just say that.

yes, i saw your "eye for an eye" statement. one thing it does is prove that jews, christians and muslims have scripture in common. i don't know where you got your "from each according to his ability [to repay/atone]" interpretation. to me, "eye for an eye" just means the punishment should be calibrated to fit the crime.

Cyberman writes:

"Trivia: Did Ye Knowth that the Majority of Common Stocks of PRIVATE PRISON Houses are owned/held by the Christian Nationals; I.e.; Friends of Chuck & Earley & Co!"

This is a very interesting claim. Can you prove it?

Back to the problem of the White Party, I think it is interesting to see the denial of Republicans when confronted with the truth about their party. The Republican Party is not racist?

The Republican Party is the conservative party in America, is it not?

It is almost all white, almost 100% white. Don't non-racist Republicans find that odd? All black people are not "leftie, liberal tools of the left." Daniel12, and others, if you knew any black people, you would know that.

In alot of ways, balck people are more conservative than white people. And yet, they stay away from the conservative party. Matters of race and racial hostility, which are really basic issues of survival, over-ride political ideology for black people.

I do not understand how Republicans can be so irate that someone would point this out. It is not merely my opinion. It is an observation of the FACTS, as Susan has noted. The Republicans keep saying that all they want is to discuss the political issues without getting into race, but that simply cannot happen as long as they continue their whites-only policy.

That is not playing dirty, and it is not playing the "race" card. It is hard to keep a straight face when dealing with Republicans, when the Emperor with no clothes is standing right over there next to the elephant in the room.

Oooopppsssa:

Trivia: Did Ye Knowth that the Majority of Common Stocks of PRIVATE PRISON Houses are owned/held by the Christian Nationals; I.e.; Friends of Chuck & Earley & Co!

Don't THE-PEOPLE" have a right (not a Priviledge) to See where All That FAITH-BASED-MONEY Money; From Reagan/Bush & Clinton/Gore to Bush/Chaney & Now Obama/Baden??

Last I Heard; $2,000,000,000 smackaroos is been Annualy Stolen from the People since the late 1980 or 1990's? via White House 'EXECUTIVE-POWERS" [USURPERS Therein] to support their secret Christian Army-Of-CRONY's!

Yell: "SHOW ME/US THE FAITH-BASED MONEY-TRAIL NOW!" Show Us the BOOKS, the MONEY [Which Church & Org got greased to do ye Dirty Work)?] Reciepts of our Proceeds? And show the People what they got in return for Ye un-godly Usurpations?

They think Its Money From Heaven? And some Really Believe that , like a Pomagranit, that it grows on Uncle-Sams Christian vines?!

Now I [WE] Know why the Economy Collapsed! Yes; Blame it on the Christians, not Jews. Not Musloms, not Us EKLAHT-ion's et al!

Like the POPE has a VATICAN-Center; Now The American CHRISTIANS have an ESTABLISHMENT similar to the Papacy, but Structurally embedded into the U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS called the "Office Of The CHAPLANCY" [Similar structure secretly built therein] ] therein;

as if a "Ecclesia Dei or the Congregation of The Doctrine of [but Evangelical] Faith. Note: Interestingly the 6 Justices of U.S. S.Ct are Catholics, not Evangelical majority?!

PS: Fact: Many of the Unconstitutionally FEDERALY-PAID Chaplains, Carry the Keys of the Prison Houses & Assist non-Clergy Officers to subdue disorderly Prisoners!

Verdict: Both Chuck Colson & Mark Earley & CO., Should be Imprisoned or Re-Instated into their Own Punishment Houses as if be Churches!

Dear Mark Earley, President, Prison Fellowship; Dear Chucky boy & Co:

Are'nt you the same Christian folks whom talked ex-Prezident BUSH's Director of "Federal Bureau Of Prisons" and later States Wardens into letting you (Baptists & Evangelicals) guys invade every Prison Library & Chapels and Crevice therein in order to

CONFISCATE: DESTROY, STEAL/TAKE, BAN Books; Especially Religious Ones & some other works via some Un-Christian Pretexts lalala, which Pissed-Off Many Prisoners & some non-FED Paid Clergy too??

You forgot [Cunningly Omitted] to Tell Ms. Jacoby that During the CLINTON Era that Your TV & MEDIA NETWORKS was , by Proxy, also Subsidized by George W. Bush & CO's Blessings via , not His/their nor Your, TAX PAYERS MONEY {i.e., from Familys of those 1-Million+ Imprisoned here]!

"You people" act like Gods going , checking , from Door Post to Door Post (Jail Cell to Jail Cell) like god did in Aegypts households & then Ye Judeo-Abe-Christo god kills Pharoahs (aka god/Osiris) First Born!?

Wow: PASSOVER a Holiday that Ye help Celebrate based on MASS BABY MURDERS?

There is More to Ye SATANIC VERSING minds! Its YOU folk whom are the Criminals; and ye art not Immune! Your Grand Kids Will See; not Ye: And I [WE] Already hath Seen the GLORY of the comming OUR (not Your) LORD, or by manymanymany names!

PS: Stop Plagerizing OUR work in Ye Sermons all around America & Elswhere! Yo will be Suid!

Amazing, No Grace ()!

S-H-A{-M-E On You ALL!

I think Moderate may be a religious mathematician. If so, there are both religious mathematicians and religious scientists. :}

"Ever read his essay on bread and cheese?"

Yes, perhaps if the Affectionate Uncle had done so, he would have thought better of heaven early on. Although....truth be told, I don't know where in the Bible men were ordered to eat cheese. Do you?

Got to sign off now. Mayhap tomorrow another debate. Still...

Take no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought of itself. Sufficient unto this day was the evil thereof.

Walter,

This is 2009. It would take me approximately fifteen hours to explain text to a willing listener, who truly did not understand. I suspect that is not the case with you.

It may be that you don't want to understand. Did you read my posts re the Bible on this thread? Do you think most Christians would agree with my interpretation of the NT? Btw., there are quite a number who categorically do, but they are certainly not in the majority.

Did you see what I wrote about "an eye for an eye"? About David?

This isn't hard, actually.

Shavians... Not I, to be sure. Old G.K. now that is a different matter. Ever read his essay on bread and cheese? Tasty, that one.

farnaz:
"There is no "scripture" common to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam."

and

"Some Jews are actually unaware of the Christian and Islamic interpretation of "an eye for an eye,""

do you see the problem with your assertion? of course they have scripture in common. genesis 1 for example. are we going to have this discussion again?

Moderate,

I hope we are of common human spirit. We must strive to be civil next time we do battle. We should probably save this chat on Word, lest we forget.

:]

Schaum,

"[I]t is open-ended in the other direction, allowing the offended party to take LESS than he has lost, even up to and including complete forgiveness of the loss."

Ah, sorry, I somehow missed this. Yes, correct, but it's more than permission. If you cannot pay, you cannot pay. That's that. Problems arise if at that point, I, too, am in need. But, those issues are also addressed.

"I am not entirely the fool some take me for. I shall not, however, take the role of Shaw, even for thou."

Well, now, I did not mean it that way. Just that we may disagree and still be of common human spirit. Besides I am not as big a man as Chesterton, either.

Moderate,

Though of course there are Shavians, unaffectionate fathers, brothers, and sisters, I simply cannot enjoy his work. His heart may have been in the right place, but his pen wasn't.

Hence, we must look elsewhere.

Schaum,

That's closer to the meaning. But with respect to debt, to which it is applied, it goes further. For example, let's say I borrowed ten dollars from you, which in a year is worth twenty, but I don't have twenty; then you must accept ten. Or, if giving you twenty would cause my family to suffer, again you must accept ten.

Schaum,

What I meant to say is that I doubt that before the fact, there are many right-minded people who think that having an abortion is a good thing. I think it is a horrible thing, and I thank nonGod that I've never had to have one. If I were to become pregnant, however, I would, in my view, have no choice. I wouldn't think it a good thing; I doubt I'd ever recover from it.

It is also hard to speak after the fact. While what you say is true, in general, in is not necessarily so in specific.

I absolutely support the right to abortion. It isn't, I'm sure you will agree, a substitute for birth control. Everything that can be done to prevented unwanted pregnancies should be done.

I would suggest that the 'eye-for-an-eye' enthusiasts, who misinterpret this scripture as a license to punish, are wrong in their interpretation. Rather than a license, I see it as a prohibition against taking MORE than an eye for an eye, etc., and that it is open-ended in the other direction, allowing the offended party to take LESS than he has lost, even up to and including complete forgiveness of the loss.

Moderate,

I am not entirely the fool some take me for. I shall not, however, take the role of Shaw, even for thou.

Surely, Chesterton had other friends...?

pseudo1:
"Anyone on the blog have any corroborating or contravening information on Susan's or Mr. Earley's assertions? This should be interesting."

yes it should. i could see some wiggle room on the "possibility" of parole thing, but the t.v. thing seems...uh...black and white.

Farnaz:

"No one is "in favor" of abortion. There's no argument here."

mmmmmmmm.......well, the argument is well established that a vast number of criminals, particularly violent criminals, come from environments in which they, as children, were not wanted, not cared for, not trained, were abused physically and sexually, etc., ad nauseam.

We have read repeatedly in the past couple of years that there has been a dramatic decrease in the rate of violent crimes.

Consider the possibility that abortion, terminating life that is not wanted by people who do not want to care for that life, has prevented a host of unwanted, potentially abused people from being born -- and thereby vastly reduced the numbers of people who might well have become career/violent criminals.

Sociologically, I'm not sure it is accurate to suggest that abortion is, per se, bad.

"Btw., have ordered Lakoff book."

L & N did get a bit thundering in the beginning of the book which my son found a bit off putting, but it does bring new light on the problems of understanding mathematics. The teaching thereof being infamously (:^)) problematical.

"You are a great human being."

As to that, the feeling is mutual, but I am sure we will have cause for debate in the future. Mayhap we are on the way to becoming Fighting Friends as Chesterton and Shaw.

Moderate,

YOu are a great human being. I am often post-Prandial, but more often pre. The Enlightenment nearly destroyed the Prandials, but we persist.

Btw., have ordered Lakoff book.

Walter,

There is no "scripture" common to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

No denomination of Christianity, including Catholicism equals the NT. All were influenced by the church fathers, then by later men and women. The NT says nothing about a Pope, for example, and I'll be darned if I see much on the Vatican or Vatican Bank.

Ditto presbyteries, the Eucharist, derived, of course, from the mystery religions of the region.

Islam, no version of it equals the Quoran.

The Torah and Tanakh are what children start reading, and, of course, they are guided. Jews don't take it literally.

Some Jews are actually unaware of the Christian and Islamic interpretation of "an eye for an eye," for e.g. When one tells them that (a), the Christians think it authorizes vengeance, which they nominally condemn, that (b) the Muslims support the vengeance interpretion, they literally laugh. They think I'm joking! Who would believe something so moronic, they ask. I've actually had to email them material on this.

What it refers to, of course, is that one may not ask more of a debtor than he can pay, etc. Too lengthy to go into here.

David is interesting in this regard. Though the psalms were not written by him in all likelihood, most of them weren't of his period, etc., they are read together with David, read, interpreted, have various levels of meaning, etc.

Goliath, etc., just ain't the point, Walter.

Farnaz,

"My faith, Climacus, is a weight-training version of Prandialism. Money from all Americans, please."

Beyond Enlightenment Prandialism clearly must lie Post Prandialism. I recommend the commentaries of Leotard and Dorito, both of whom viewed Enlightenment Prandialism with some dismay, though for different reasons. It seems they found in the comprehensive reactionary theories of Larousse Gastronomique something difficult, to ah... swallow. Personally I am inclined to a cigar and a brandy for the deliberations of Post Prandialism. Better still if the kind tax payer will pick up the check because of its profound religious significance.

farnaz,
i'm not sure what you're getting at. of course no sane person favors abortion.

i'm just quoting judeochrislamic scripture to show that god hasn't always been "pro-life" (in every sense of the expression).

in exodus the penalty for killing a fetus is MUCH less than the penalty for killing an adult. in hosea, he promises to kill pregnant women. in matthew, it's pregnant women again.

you said,
"Islam does not condone abortion. Judaism requires abortion if the mother's health or life is at risk. This has always been the case."

is that based on scripture? which verses? or are those "derived" doctrines? i haven't read jewish scripture except as it appears in the "o.t.", so don't know if there are "fetus" verses in there.

Susan Jacoby:

"Charles W. Colson's prison programs bombard prisoners with fundamentalist propaganda in return for certain privileges, such as access to big-screen televisions and the possibility of early parole."

Mark Earley, President, Prison Fellowship:

"... no Prison Fellowship program has ever made big-screen televisions available to prisoners—that’s a matter of court record—or offered the possibility of early parole, which only state and federal parole boards can grant.:

One of these people is incorrect.

Anyone on the blog have any corroborating or contravening information on Susan's or Mr. Earley's assertions? This should be interesting.

"Not only are power struggles between state and church usually instigated by the state, but they usually end with the state successfully expanding its power over religion."

Your point is about the likely outcome of such struggles. My general point is about which outcome is more dangerous. I'm suggesting that True Believer extremists of both the religious and secular sort pose a greater threat to freedom than do aspiring tyrants who seek power only for its own sake. That's because the former honestly believe they're doing the right thing. For clarification, my True Believer category includes the brutal ideologies of the 20th century, which strongly resembled extremist religions.

My specific point about the American religious right is that this conflict was instigated by the religion and not the state. The Scopes trial involved a religion attempting to use the law to push its doctrine - the evolution hypothesis wasn't created by government. And it was the Knights of Columbus who pushed for the theocratic phrase "one nation under God" to be inserted into the Pledge. Fighting back against that type of Christian nationalism is NOT about enhancing the power of the state at the expense of religion. It's about keeping government neutral among various religions.

Another way to avoid abortion would be for all men to have vasectomies.

Walter,

There are different gods. The Christian/Catholic god was in favor of the torturing to death of his Son, his reason for being, favored the "sacrifice" of a human being.

Islam does not condone abortion. Judaism requires abortion if the mother's health or life is at risk. This has always been the case. It prioritizes human life, places it above all.

There are other circumstances under which Judaism allows abortion. And then the different denominations have different views.

No one is "in favor" of abortion. There's no argument here.

I think that all men should be required to donate bone marrow to any who need it. Likewise to offer up a kidney. Why should children and adults die? Men are committing murder.

Get it?

Daniel12,

There is a lot of (secondary) criticism on Benjamin on the web and in libraries. Reading him in isolation can be difficult. Once you find a way in, not so hard. Also, explore the Frankfurt School. Use google. See the Wikipedia article.

My faith, Climacus, is a weight-training version of Prandialism. Money from all Americans, please.

And note, I am not a psychotic bigot running around protesting outside of churches that the Christians killed Jews. See Brad Hirschfield's column. YOu and I are paying for those b.a.s.t.a.r.d.s. to do what they are doing, paying for others to do much, much worse.

Weight-training Prandialism is the answer. The latter would go over well in many parts of this country, where people go to bed hungry. Give my money to them, not to the Westboro Church and the like.

Climacus,

Local atheletic clubs in my locale charge a minimum of $1200 dollars per membership (I am not a member of one), and are not subsidized by taxpayers.

However, being a believer in the body of my self I will petition the government for a local subsidy.

I also would like the government to defray the expenses of Japanese, Chinese, Pakistani, Indian, Vietnamese, Italian, and, of course, Iranian restaurants, as I am also a believer in ethnic dining. (I dine facing various nations three times a day, minimum.)

globalone:
"There is not a single, positive lesson to be learned from an abortion. None. A bad decision is only made worse. Sad, indeed."

agreed. abortion is horrible. gay sex NEVER leads to abortion.

when the religious get on their high horse about abortion i remind them that though god made no specific statements about “abortion,” in exodus 21:20 we get a rare, almost accidental, glimpse into what he thought about fetuses. while describing penalties for various transgressions, god says,

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.”

in those days a “premature” baby was a DEAD baby - a miscarriage. the fine was remuneration for causing the miscarriage. it’s just a fine. if god considered the fetus a human life, the penalty would have been death. in the next verse, god goes on to say,

“But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

god was talking about serious injury to the woman, not the baby.

we can surmise that god would probably be in FAVOR of abortion (and murder) if the mother has "other gods": surely some of joshua’s victims were pregnant and in hosea 13:16, god warned unbelievers in samaria that they would have their “little ones dashed to the ground and pregnant women ripped open.” true, they were infidels, but it’s not very fetus-friendly. later jesus warned specifically of woe unto unbelieving expectant mothers at the tribulations (mt24:19).

our concern for the 0 to 3 month-old fetus is not so much a judeochrislamic value as it is a humanist value.

Farnaz wrote: "There is no more reason why anyone should subsidize others' 'church' memberships than there is for them to contribute to folks' local athletic clubs."

Local athletic clubs (the amateur variety, not the Redskins) are eligible for the same treatment under 501(c)(3) as religious groups. So what's your point here?

On certain black men having a prominent position in the Republican party--the white party--in the U.S.: Someone once said that when people are forced to live in a place in which they are viewed as foreign, or as outsiders, they either remain in the position of being foreign, or outside, and try to change the politics of the place to be more favorable to themselves, or they become the most hardened of conservatives in an attempt to extinguish the foreign, outsider feeling and rapidly fit in.

On Walter Benjamin: twenty or so years ago I bought two volumes of Benjamin in English translation--I wish I could remember the translator--and they were among the most difficult to read books I have ever encountered. It seemed as if the translator was too literal in translating the German or something, because there was no rhythm of sentence to sentence but rather the feeling this sentence is too short, that one is too long, and one would never know if one was to stop abruptly or have to read on and on to the end of a too long sentence. But then again, maybe the translator was not at fault because I read Benjamin has a difficult style. I liked the man's thoughts, but what writing to have to get through to appreciate them. (And please, no jokes about my writing being the most difficult writing to read whether in translation or not. I know I have to work on my writing.)

Carstonio wrote: "While I share [TheModerate's] concern, I see the opposite as the greater problem, where the state is reduced to serving the purposes of a specific religion."

Yet history is on TheModerate's side here. Not only are power struggles between state and church usually instigated by the state, but they usually end with the state successfully expanding its power over religion.

WalterIFC:

Near as I am able to figure, Jesus WAS a socialist. When you tell rich young men to sell all their stuff and give the money to the poor, what can you call that but socialism?

"heck, if we were all gay, there'd be no abortions...."

Abortion is not a state of being. It is absolutely and completely a choice.

When we condone abortion, we choose to ignore responsibility and accountability. We choose to teach our children that taking responsibility for their actions is only necessary when the outcome doesn't affect them or make their lives more difficult.

There is not a single, positive lesson to be learned from an abortion. None. A bad decision is only made worse. Sad, indeed.

Schaum:
"And I am mystified that there are evidently "true" christians who are also republicans.

again, indeed. i've made the case elsewhere that i think were jesus alive he'd be a "lefty" - probably a communist or socialist, but at least a democrat. the republican party has, extremely cleverly, made "morals" about homosexuality, sex in general and abortion instead of love and compassion.

heck, if we were all gay, there'd be no abortions....

Schaum:

i said,
"maybe it's time we capitalize on the humanistic religious impulse to "do good"."

you said,
"Sure, but not with my tax dollars please. I resent having my money used to support the very same organizations that discriminate against me and other gays."

well, like i said, i'm conflicted about this. they're religious people who, almost by definition, believe crazy things about the universe (including that gays are bad), but they do do good things.

somewhere in this mix, the existing tax breaks that churches get should be figured. they already get that benefit... maybe a function of the "board of supervising atheists" i've proposed would be to make sure no discrimination laws are broken by govt-$-recieving religious charities. maybe to get this $ they give up some/all of certain tax breaks. maybe govt $ is only given to religious charities that don't discriminate.

another function of the "board of supervising atheists" would be to make sure the money gets spread around. i mean not ALL religions discriminate against gays. that discrimination seems to be society-wide problem about which we're getting better. sure, as usual, scripture is at odds with moral progress, so it's going to take these religions a while to come around.

like i said, i find myself on the other side of this issue than i would have guessed. i'm kind of uncomfortable arguing the "pro-religion" side, here... i guess i'm arguing the "pro-people" side, figuring the good will outweigh the bad. so, i support the idea, very tentatively, with assurances (via my made-up "board of supervising atheists") that these 4-recieving religious charities will play fair.

i could be easily convinced to go against govt $ for religious charities (that would be more my "natural" position) if i could see examples of "harm" done by it - substantial harm which outweighs the "feed the hungry" parts.

wishy-washily yours...

Schaum,

Walter Benjamin is hard to pigeonhole. I guess he is best described as a philosopher and cultural critic. Too brilliant, the fellow was, too tragic his death. The prevailing trope of the west is irony. Neither Democrats nor Republicans see that, for the most part.

WalterIFC:

No kidding! I don't see how a black person can in any benefit by being a republican. And I am mystified that there are evidently "true" christians who are also republicans. Talk about oxymorons..

Schaum,

I think you are referring to Scholem, who was a close friend of Benjamin. The latter has been, for several decades, a "seminal thinker" in academia.

He was ethnically "German Jewish," yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Benjamin

Farnaz:

Wasn't Benjamin a Jewish philosopher/mystic in Germany? When did he live? Did he write something about the Kaballah? I think I misspelled that...

Hi Schaum,

Are you familiar with Walter Benjamin? The two lengthy posts are from him. The second is the "Angel of History Parable."

Schaum:
"Didn't this used to be called 'uncle tom'-ism?"

indeed. "uncle tom" is, i believe, used derisively by both blacks and whites. it's tough being a black republican.

Farnaz:

"To articulate what is past does not mean to recognize “how it really was.” "

Agreed.

WalterIFC:

"maybe it's time we capitalize on the humanistic religious impulse to "do good"."

Sure, but not with my tax dollars please. I resent having my money used to support the very same organizations that discriminate against me and other gays.

Schaum,

"History is necromancy."

Just so. Bi-di-rectionally. Two for you from Walter B. below.

Schaum:

To articulate what is past does not mean to recognize “how it really was.” It means to take control of a memory, as it flashes in a moment of danger. For historical materialism it is a question of holding fast to a picture of the past, just as if it had unexpectedly thrust itself, in a moment of danger, on the historical subject. The danger threatens the stock of tradition as much as its recipients. For both it is one and the same: handing itself over as the tool of the ruling classes. In every epoch, the attempt must be made to deliver tradition anew from the conformism which is on the point of overwhelming it. For the Messiah arrives not merely as the Redeemer; he also arrives as the vanquisher of the Anti-Christ. The only writer of history with the gift of setting alight the sparks of hope in the past, is the one who is convinced of this: that not even the dead will be safe from the enemy, if he is victorious. And this enemy has not ceased to be victorious.

--Walter Benjamin

Schaum

My wing is ready to fly
I would rather turn back
For had I stayed mortal time
I would have had little luck.
– Gerhard Scholem, “Angelic Greetings”

There is a painting by Klee called Angelus Novus. An angel is depicted there who looks as though he were about to distance himself from something which he is staring at. His eyes are opened wide, his mouth stands open and his wings are outstretched. The Angel of History must look just so. His face is turned towards the past. Where we see the appearance of a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe, which unceasingly piles rubble on top of rubble and hurls it before his feet. He would like to pause for a moment so fair [verweilen: a reference to Goethe’s Faust], to awaken the dead and to piece together what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise, it has caught itself up in his wings and is so strong that the Angel can no longer close them. The storm drives him irresistibly into the future, to which his back is turned, while the rubble-heap before him grows sky-high. That which we call progress, is this storm.

--Walter Benjamin

WalterIFC:

"are at the same time happy to serve as diversity "posterboys" for the republican, i.e., conservative, party."

Didn't this used to be called 'uncle tom'-ism?

i am truly conflicted by the issue of govt $ to church charities. separation of church and state are good for both church and state. consider the relative "health" of religion in america. we're one of the most religious countries in the world (right up there with islamic theocracies...).

in principle i'm opposed to govt "helping" religion. but i admit these church charities do good things for people. i don't have figures for this, but i bet most charities are religious. maybe it's time we capitalize on the humanistic religious impulse to "do good".

can't there be a compromise? do we have to be "fundamentalists" about everything? are we reasonable people? there can be some kind of oversight board, probably with lots of atheists on it, to make sure no proselytizing-type stuff goes on and to make sure all charities, religious and otherwise, get fair shots at govt $.

i'm surprised that i'm not totally against govt $ for religious charities, but they do do good....

RE: "They will never be declared unconstitutional unless we get a fifth person on the Supreme Court who respects the separation of church and state."

This view of how the SC is to be used is unsustainable in the long run IMO. Unless the justices are to be elected, they should have a more restained role. All of the liberal democracies which progressive Americans admire bring about most social policy change through the legislature.

It's a perversion of the US system that every time a SC justice is up for nomination, people are biting their nails wondering if R v W is going to be overturn. If the change had come about through the legislature, this would not happen. Same for your comment about faith-based programs.

America might not be as progressive as we would like, but getting there through the back door of the SC is not in our best interest. This nation is not so cohesive that it is immune to having another civil war.

Susan,

Assuming it is an honest mistake, we are asking that you stop repeating the innacurate statement that Prison Fellowship, founded by Chuck Colson, has received federal funds. You first made the claim in a New York Times op-ed in February, and you repeat it here. Prison Fellowship has never received federal funds—from the Bush administration or any other administration.

You refer here to the well-publicized and documented lawsuit involving the InnerChange Freedom Initiative program begun by Prison Fellowship in Iowa—which, at one time, did receive partial funding from the state of Iowa. Today, Prison Fellowship receives no state or federal funds.

And, I would add, no Prison Fellowship program has ever made big-screen televisions available to prisoners—that’s a matter of court record—or offered the possibility of early parole, which only state and federal parole boards can grant.

Mark Earley, President, Prison Fellowship

Schaum:
"Wonder what it says about men like Thomas and Steele, who are so ferociously supported by the white conservative establishment, and who in turn are themselves so supportive OF the white conservative establishment..."

i imagine they really actually do have conservative "beliefs" and are at the same time happy to serve as diversity "posterboys" for the republican, i.e., conservative, party. don't know how they deal with the racism coming from dixieland.

In order to deal with religion, we must first describe it. As I see it, all religions, including Buddism have the following in common. I will refrain from giving a lot of individual examples since you can come up with those yourself.
1. Dietary restrictions. No pork, no alcohol, fasting at times etc.
2. Restrictions on sexual activity.
3. Intermediaries between the flock and deity.
4. Dire consequences if dogma is not adhered to. In life becoming a social outcast, after death worse.
5. Insistence that the belief takes precedence over family and friends. I.e. shunning one's kids when departing from the flock. Human sacrifice in Aztec religion. Watching the neighbor lady burn at the stake.
6. Preach peace but wage war. Often between two sects of the same belief.
7. Total disregard for reality. If a subset of the belief is too outlandish, "Faith" is called on to justify belief.
8. Huge amounts of personal time demanded of the flock to engage in rituals, proscelyzing, prayer etc.
9. A semi informal system of flock members checking on each other for "purity of faith". It takes the form of ordained visits to each other's homes such as in the Mormon church or observance of frequency of attendance at functions.
10. Dresscode. For priests, flock and especially female members of the flock.
11. Male domination.
12. Adversion to scientific enterprise.
13. Language use restrictions. I.e. "Gosh darn" etc.
14. Political alliance with despots and monarchy.
15. An us and them ambience. "Goy", heathen, heretic etc. All manner of atrocities can be inflicted on "Them" with impunity.

Some religions are more benign than others such as Buddhism. The Judaic ones are aspecially toxic as their histories will attest to.

What stands out here is that anyone fanatically believing in any religion is essentially an unpleasant person who has decided to live in an alternate reality. Why? Maybe fear. Religion does provide these folks with an extensive social network. There is security there at the expense of giving up one's soul and rationality, so to speak.

However, we should never allow these folks to determine the fate of nations or set standards of behavior for the entire population. If we allow this, sooner rather than later, the witch trials will start again and we will see much more of essentially religious warfare as presently going on in Afghanistan and Iraq and to somer extent still in Ireland.

It is just and right and essential for civilization to continue that we seperate Church and State.

"When church and state are mixed, then the church is always reduced to serving the purposes of the state."

While I share your concern, I see the opposite as the greater problem, where the state is reduced to serving the purposes of a specific religion.

I disagree with Jacoby on this issue. A ban on government money going to faith-based charities may technically comply with the First Amendment. But in practice, such a ban would entangle government in religious matters because it would require government to decide what constitutes a religion. It would be very easy for religious organizations to claim that the government is discriminating against them. It would also be very easy for such organizations to get around the ban by creating dummy non-profits that were secular only on paper.

I see the real First Amendment issue here as making sure the government doesn't play favorites among the religious charities. I would recommend that any government aid to charities be open to all of them, religious or secular. To address the issue of proselytizing, I might offer the aid as coupons for food, clothing and other goods instead of as broad grants. Or at least institute a rule that none of the money could be spent on any form of advertising or marketing, although that would be more difficult to enforce.

Jacoby has an excellent point regarding the Bush-era memo. I would play hardball with any charity, religious or secular, that refused to comply with the anti-discrimination laws. No one is making the charities take the aid.

What does Jacoby mean by the "religious left"? I know of no organization that advocates a lefty version of Christian nationalism. In my experience, the religious organizations on the left translate their principles into secular nonsectarian ones that people of any faith or no faith can appreciate. (Can you imagine a lefty version of Mike Huckabee saying that it's "God's standards" to legalize gay marriage?)

Daniel12:

Just finished reading your 7-part burlesque.

Go to this site: http://logic.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/main.htm

This website is an introduction to logic and provides, through a range of materials and tools, an introduction to the study of elementary logic covering propositional and predicate calculus. It is aimed especially at first year undergraduates studying Philosophy at the University of Oxford, but it is hoped that the site may be useful more widely, for anyone who would like to investigate the subject.

The materials are structured as a series of eight detailed tutorials, which introduce the main concepts and definitions together with examples and exercises. The tutorials start with the notions of consistency and validity, and proceed to introduce a language and system of proof for propositional logic and for predicate logic. They include a tutorial on designators and a tutorial on relations. The language and system of proof (by means of tableaux, i.e. trees) are those to be found in W. Hodges, Logic, 2nd edition (Penguin, 2001).

WalterIFC:

Wonder what it says about men like Thomas and Steele, who are so ferociously supported by the white conservative establishment, and who in turn are themselves so supportive OF the white conservative establishment...

BLOGLADY wrote:

"We need a new-WORD that can more express this real side.?

REALITY: "HOPE" comes From HISTORY (like Big-Bang or Arrow of TIME) and Mr. Future, the Twin of Ms. Destiny, depends on HOPE; not the Dead, eventhough from OLD we cometh and therefrom Borneth aNEW!"

I think we need a new word to describe you.

rohitcuny:
"After all, didn't the Republicans support Clarence Thomas? Isn't their party chair Steele black? No doubt some Republicans are racist, but the Republican opposition to Obama would not have appeared if Obama had been a conservative.
Let us discuss issues on their merits, shall we?"

the fact that you have to go back to clarence thomas illustrates how rare black republicans are.

and as DITLD pointed out, republicans aren't exactly thrilled right now with steele. so, throw colin powell (who they're not happy with either...) in there and we've got 3 black republicans. any others? if you're very politically aware, maybe you can name 10, maybe.

rohitcuny

Don't you find it a little odd that the Republican Party is almost entirely white? and that their Party Chariman, Michael Steele, is black? Obviously, he is not worried about race, and his idealogically conservatives beliefs over-ride any perception of Republican racism. I am sure there are alot of conservative black people, but they still remain in the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, which is unwelcoming to them because they are black.

But why was Micahel Steele chosen to be Chairman? Because he is black, and to prove that the Republican Party is not racist. Nevermind that almost ALL Republican hate him and want him fired. But he cannot be fired, can he?

If the all-white Republican Party were to fire their black party Chariman, that would look really bad, now wouldn't it? In this respect, they are being very PC.

To quote Archie Bunker:

"They have painted themselves into a corner and then thrown away the key."

ONOFRIO

History = NECROMANCY"

Definition: CONJURATION of the spirits of the dead for purpose of magically-revealing the FUTURE? OR Influencing destiny.

- Marriam-Websters

I think the Dead should be more worried about Their uncertain negative, DEAD-END Petrgatory's, and not OUR certain positive living future(s)!

We need a new-WORD that can more express this real side.?

REALITY: "HOPE" comes From HISTORY (like Big-Bang or Arrow of TIME) and Mr. Future, the Twin of Ms. Destiny, depends on HOPE; not the Dead, eventhough from OLD we cometh and therefrom Borneth aNEW!

Humans are smart yet very stupid; hence a Danger to themselves, includes the Dead and the Living. Example; Living Humans , not the Dead?, are very JEALOUS and are scared of their own shadows? And The DEAD want what you have NOW. So don't give-in to them (DEAD spirits), hang in there buddy, don't let them take ye yet! Be strong; else they will swallow you into the BOTTOMLESS PIT!

"Don't rush tomorrow. Enjoy Today; for tomorrow will inevitably come"

- Albert Einstein. Our Father of Many [May Peace Be Upon Him et al].

Part one.

Should religious charities that receive federal grant money be allowed to discriminate in hiring?

My opinion on this question is rather decided: Religious charities should not receive federal grant money in the first place let alone be allowed to discriminate in hiring. But it is quite understandable that religious charities would expect federal money even if not going so far as to discriminate in hiring. In fact religious charities would have a quite nice position in receiving federal money but not discriminating in hiring. This position taken would bring money into the particular religion while at the same time giving it influence, enabling its spread, which would be more difficult if receiving money and discriminating in hiring or not receiving any money at all.

Part two.

But I really have no interest in speaking of religion at all here. Much more interesting is the notion of federal government, the generous hand born of the invisible hand of Adam Smith and which many people insist must replace the invisible hand. The federal government as we know it in America was at first an ugly, twisted hand--and still is to many--which was born, as said, of the invisible hand of Adam Smith, which can be described as the economic actors within society by their individual actions enriching society, no supervision from any well known historical centralization of power allowed. But gradually by the invisible hand was born a centralized power to succeed all previous forms of centralized power, and this we call the federal government.

Part three.

To be clearer, the modern economy was born by reducing the value of all previous types of centralized power over history, whether we speak of monarchy or aristocracy or oligarchy or theocracy or whichever. And in place of these values was erected at first the possibility inherent in each individual. This of course was the promise of what we call democracy, but in the laissez faire of it all we could see the invisible hand erecting the first sight of the generous hand of the federal government, and this first sight was the ugly, twisted hand of new types of centralization of power which had as their foundation greed, the pure desire to make a profit. But regardless of these attempts to have the invisible hand abort in becoming an ugly, twisted hand democracy took its course, the peculiar ever increasing fluidity of money becoming something of the circulation of blood--blood pumped especially by the best of individuals--and resulting in a more beautiful hand than the mere twisted one, and this we call federal government, and which socialists call the beginning of the apotheosis of the democratic ideal.

And gradually the generous hand becomes more than a hand, becomes the brain flushed with blood of a new conception of society, one with a new type of centralization of power, the flush of money the flush of blood and new breathing in and out of society. Money becoming gradually less and less evil and actually perfect circularity of blood the more the new type of centralization of power becomes effective--and beyond that dendrite and axon and sheer nerve of instant transmission, a defiance of all forms of previous centralizations of power over history and new, effective immediately, brain and sight determined to make the best use of all humans in society. Imagine a bullet hole in the head of all previous forms of centralized government and the spread of blood taking shape as if a ghost but is really the wind of a new body walking...But then again federal government can remain nothing more than a leaking wound from the corpse of all previous forms of government. Our task is determine how the latter can be so and what to do to avoid it.

Part four.

First of all we should state that a terrible error is to view federal government as a charity. What we call federal government, this new type of centralization of power succeeding all previous historical forms of centralization of power, was born by the best individuals, quality individuals putting aside all tendencies to well known forms of centralization of power. In other words these individuals worked toward creating a new hand of man from their invisible yet effective actions, and this hand although twisted at first in the greed of pure profit gradually became more and more generous until it could be seen that actually a new brain was being born of society--in fact perhaps society really, finally, learning to think. But unfortunately today too many people still have no understanding of this process, still have quite obsolete views on how wealth is created, and have disturbing views concerning federal government. An unpleasant task is to consider both our right and left wing parties with respect to this historical process. But unfortunately federal government cannot be seen for what it is and can be without a clear look at the behavior of our two political parties.

Take the Republican party first. The Republican party is all too eager to distill the economic success of the modern society--and the federal government itself--within the terms of well known historical forms of the centralization of power. Thus we have the Republican party uplifting religion as if it has given birth to economic success, or not too subtly celebrating oligarchy and monopoly, and in general speaking favorably of all forms of conservative power--even monarchy. Economic success being less and less dependent on easily observed forms of the centralization of power--typically familiar historical ones--is frightening to the conservative movement. The notion of federal government being some sort of centralization of power utterly removed from all previous known forms of the centralization of power is distressing. The conservative in general fears this dissolving power, fears the strange source of a dissolving power which reduces all previous forms of human social identity to insignificance. The tendency of the Republican is to say THAT is big government, opposing to big government "small government" which is actually its prefered forms of the centralization of power, and which are well known to us historically.

Part five.

But the left wing party is no better. In fact the left wing party is a disaster. The left wing party seems to have no notion at all of how federal government came into existence and how it can be sustained and made better, in fact something of the promise of socialism, and better still something which after having dissolved all previous forms of the centralization of power dissolves itself, and all we have are quality individuals helping one another and a new social identity which--dare I say it?--is finally the human race being born after years and years of talk of a human race. The terrible error of the left wing is not to observe that every step in overcoming all previous forms of the centralization of power over history depended on quality individuals, individuals willing and capable of producing wealth and a new centralization of power, which of course is the federal government. The federal government was not meant to be a charity--in fact just the opposite--it was meant to be merely a new optical device--or if one prefers, brain--to locate with ever increasing acuity precisely the types of individuals which made it to begin with. The disaster of the left is to make it increase the power of precisely more forms of the centralization of power familiar from history than the right does. The right has its pet forms, but the left speaks of multiculturality. The federal government a non-denominational charity which nevertheless enables every form of denomination, whether race or ethnic group or religion or prefered form of government (Sharia law anyone?). The denomination not money created by the best of individuals and spread precisely where it can have the best effect--in the hands of like individuals to the best--but any denomination other than money which expects money to be nothing but charity.

Part six.

So really we have on the part of the right and left a double and dangerous movement against the federal government and what it further can become. The right wing is an hubristic movement--as all right wing forces over all of history--which is imperialistic and seeks to reduce the different to being satellites of itself. We can see this of course in the close association between the right and the military, and in somewhat less obvious aggressive form in the form of corporations which, for all hostility to big government, have no problem becoming big themselves and incorporating all which would prefer to be under the aegis of a different power. And the left wing is an hubristic movement all its own, in fact comically so. The left wing rejects the imperialistic tendencies of the right, as it says, but somehow believes in the spread of the federal government to the point of big government bringing all races, ethnic groups, religions, under its umbrella of universal charity. The question seems to completely escape the left how such a charity is to be financed. But then again, the left knows all too well--knows such a charity can exist only by quality individuals creating and sustaining it. And the more quality individuals exist, the more their numbers increase, the less the federal government needs to be a charity, the less the socialistic society is a handout and rather a creation designed to locate with ever increasing acuity valuable individuals, and elevate them to the point no centralization of power exists at all, and we have a strange society called a true democracy, finally a democracy utterly removed from the danger it has been all too liable to over history: anarchy. But then again the left knows none of this at all. What it is composed of to a disturbing degree is precisely the ineffective, the incapable, precisely people least likely to create a federal government, let alone finance it to the point of universal charity.

Part seven.

The left wants a standard of living regulated by law and to which everyone is entitled? The left wants universal healthcare? The left wants jobs for everyone? Unfortunately all that depends on quality individuals. Standard of living increases by quality individuals. Universal healthcare becomes feasible only when we have people of quality in existence to finance it--which is why socialistic healthcare exists at its best in societies which have a high ratio of quality individuals. The Mayo clinic in the U.S. a model of healthcare? It is successful because it first has quality individuals paying into it--and who in turn are served by it. The sadness of the left: it wants to help the weak, the poor, the disfranchised, the left out peoples, races, religions. But precisely those people are incapable of creating a society beyond all previous forms of the centralization of power over history in the first place. The dream of the left--and this should please the elites of the left--can come into existence only by elites. Sheer meritocracy. Thus the right and left are unworthy of federal government. And both deserve...our charity.

".. MAJOR? religious groups and denominations are urging Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. to RENOUNCE? a Bush-era memo.." [BLAME all of todays problems on Bush era?: How about the Clintons for Inviting the Churchs into our, not their, White-house?].

Could it be that The Devil is in the details or is it in them nice and cunning but sounding Ambiguous-words?

The word RENOUNCE, should be replaced with the word "ABOLISH": The American CHURCH's, like Communists infiltrating our [SECULAR] Institutions, Knowingly hath been "USURPING" and FLOUTING, our, not their, precious Holy-Like U.S. Constitution.

Printing $ 2 Billion Dollars of Secular directed Currency, but now specially made for "Church-Based" run Hipocritic folk under Tax-Exempt Priviledges is Blasphamy.

God the "Father" Of Harlots?, God the "Son" of Harlots?, Goddess the "Mother" of Harlots?

Remember the PEDIPHILE Roman Catholic Church-Based scandals committing Acts against Humanity , especially American Children and Foreign siblings?

REVELATION: Many Tax-Exempt Churches are Proxy Embassies for both the RUSSIAN & CHINESE [closet] COMMUNISTS! This is how they 'Infiltrate' our Elected leaders and foreign Nationals, but treat them as their own.

Through the CHURCH(s) America is getting dumber, Besides showing more Naiveness than ever? This conspiracy is real and the economic down-turn is when the DEVIL/SATAN does it's work; especially sleeping in bed with [our] Elected Officials.

America is ripe, via "Foreign-Agents" for a National Government Take-Over by them Cunning/Sneaky Communist-Run Religious-Institutions!

Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. and accomplices should be Hung, stoned, Be-headed or Eletricuted.

History = necromancy

Love to dabble.

No, not a beautiful thing. To say that surely would have been Greek to the ancients. Saul trampled the truth. Truth is not beauty, nor is beauty truth. Although not all we need to discern, the distinction serves us well on earth and, my guess is, also in heaven.

Goodnight, ladies and gents.

Saul sacrificed for a "greater good," one might say. He trampled a beautiful thing....

Farnaz,

I have not, sadly, read any of Susan's books. But her "The Age of American Unreason" is on my list of books to buy.

Arminius,

Yes, she is very good. I will be forever one of the unsung (nonfamous) persons who is grateful.

I've been thinking of using one of her essays in one of my classes next semester. Have you read much of her nonblog stuff?

Moderate,

I hope I didn't offend you. I don't know why famously has ravaged me so. I think I have a sensitive nervous system.

Farnaz,

Susan is good about such corrections, whether to herself or others. I once attributed something in a post to John Adams, regarding a motion for an opening prayer in the first meeting of the Continental Congress. She immediately, and politely, posted that it was Sam Adams. I verified this, and forthwith offered an apology and a thank-you for the correction.

Moderate,

Not to belabor the crisis of "famously," but once I read the offending word in an essay of Susan J's. Having come to that adverb, I could go no further. "Et tu, Susan?" I thought. "Then...?"

There was nothing for it but for me to pen two urgent appeals that she cease and desist forthwith regarding said lexical item. She replied very graciously and has since refrained.

She is a wonderful human being. One can tell from such things. :)

Sorry.
-----------
Think nothing of it.

Ironically, though famously, there is an NPR host who has a US English lexicon protector on his show every week. He has been much given to famously-izing. At all events, she caught one of his famously-ings, and instinctively added it to the index verbum prohibitorum. "What?" queried he, stunned.

"Nothing," replyeth the dame. And so he has been famously-ing ever since.

Moderate,

If they did it clearly would have excused the whole thing. :^)
---------------------
Zesta! As Onofrio would say!

Sorry.

"Infamously? Notoriously? His consultation was condemned?"

He disguised himself to consult the necromancer, and she protested that she would be killed. He swore that no harm would befall her. Sounds like he did know it was condemned.
----------------
Of course, he knew. A little Agamemnonesque, IMHO. But I believe that the infamy succeeded the event. "Famously" famously drives me nuts. Sorry. :(

Famously overworked word, that.

"Acorn plan to have chapels discreetly placed in houses of ill repute?"

If they did it clearly would have excused the whole thing. :^)

Moderate,

Some mega churches famously provide athletic clubs. Neat dodge.
--------------------
Interesting! So, if athletic clubs start providing chaplains? (Develop the soul and the body--Good slogan) What then?

"Infamously? Notoriously? His consultation was condemned?"

He disguised himself to consult the necromancer, and she protested that she would be killed. He swore that no harm would befall her. Sounds like he did know it was condemned.

Hi Moderate,

Or exempt organizations that help people set up brothels supposedly staffed by under aged girls?
---------------------
Gee, I don't know. Hmmmm....Did Acorn plan to have chapels discreetly placed in houses of ill repute?

Susan J,

I believe we who oppose taxation without representation need a new slogan that fits the current crisis.

Sincerely,
Farnaz

"There is no more reason why anyone should subsidize others' "church" memberships than there is for them to contribute to folks' local athletic clubs."

Some mega churches famously provide athletic clubs. Neat dodge.

Still, what do you think of exempt status for non-religious non-profits? The Nature Conservancy, for example.

Or exempt organizations that help people set up brothels supposedly staffed by under aged girls?

Infamously? Notoriously? His consultation was condemned?

No slingshot expert, that dude.

Moderate,

"King Saul famously consults the necromancer Witch of Endor "

Quite so. Ain't religion fun, sometimes? Not to mention confusing.

Yup, Saul did it famously. Check out all the references from Mod. et moi.

"Help. Somewhere in the old testament there is a specific admonition, forbidding those who believe in god from contacting, atttempting to contact, or otherwise communicating with the dead."

King Saul famously consults the necromancer Witch of Endor

Sam 28:8-11

Schaum,

Check out--

Deut 18: 10-12; Lev 19:31, Lev 20:6 27

Nevermind, Farnaz. Found it. Isaiah 8:19-22. There may be others, but this is the one I'm 'familiar' with.

Excellent essay, Susan! Faith-based funding should have ended with Obama. It does more than undermine the questionable shift the questionable boundary between between church and state. This imposition erases it. For obvious political reasons, no court challenges have yet succeeded, but they continue.

As bloggers have argued continually, regardless of the issue, the problem goes deeper. Tax exempt status for mosques, synagogues, churches, temples must end. It has gone from unjustifiable to unconscionable as the US continues to suffer economic distress. There is no more reason why anyone should subsidize others' "church" memberships than there is for them to contribute to folks' local athletic clubs.

Believers are invited to fund their own religious institutions.

Farnaz:

Help. Somewhere in the old testament there is a specific admonition, forbidding those who believe in god from contacting, atttempting to contact, or otherwise communicating with the dead. Are you familiar with that passage? I know its there...I have read it. But I can't find it. Any clues?

1. Separation of church and state protects the church. When church and state are mixed, then the church is always reduced to serving the purposes of the state. So keep your state out of my church, thank you very much.

2. Should church run organizations be able to discriminate in hiring for any reason, whether the funded by the state or not, if similar non religious helping organizations do not? And if so on what basis? Faith? Gender? Race? Ethnicity? Obviously this cannot extend to clergy positions where one of the job qualifications is to take vows of faith.

Q: Is the government doing religious charities a favor or are the charities doing us a favor?

A: Religious charities are doing the government (and society) a favor.

In the first place, churches exist in every neighborhood, in every town, in every state. For the government to match this investment in infrastructure would be expensive, time-consuming and wasteful.

Secondly, the majority of people working in or for church charities are volunteers, further reducing the costs of distributing aid to the people who need it. In fact, Christians seem to donate time to the Church in far greater numbers than atheists seem to donate time to the government. I guess Uncle Sam could always pay people to do what the Church currently gets people to do for free. Just what America needs, another expensive civil service bureaucracy.

The Church should not and will not allow non-believers to run their ministries for them – so get over it. If this offends you then take your precious tax dollars back, but know that you will not hurt the Church. You will only hurt the taxpayer who will have to pay much more and the needy who will have to wait much longer (or do with much less) – what a perfect liberal solution.

Susan says: "And there is no way, ever, that such aid does not constitute a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment."

Does the caselaw support this conclusion?

What makes Susan Jacoby so confident that she should be playing constitutional lawyer here?

With apologies to The Princess Bride, "You keep using the term Establishment Clause. I do not think it means what you think it means."

You said: "Some of you may have noticed a great many new bloggers on this thread last week, and all of them were appalled--absolutely shocked!--at the suggestion that race plays an important role in the manifestations of hatred toward Obama."
---------
"plays an important role" is a rather mild claim. After all, race played a big role in the fact the African Americans voted massively for Obama. But that does not imply that they would have voted massively for someone else who was black but incompetent. Obama's race was one factor among many.

Republicans have real ideological differences with Obama and while, on health care, I agree with Obama and not with the Republicans, I think accusing the Republicans of being racist is playing dirty. After all, didn't the Republicans support Clarence Thomas? Isn't their party chair Steele black? No doubt some Republicans are racist, but the Republican opposition to Obama would not have appeared if Obama had been a conservative.

Let us discuss issues on their merits, shall we?

No, Ubiquity1, faith-based aid is not unconstitutional. Government-supported faith-based aid, is.

Title: "Faith-Based Aid Is Unconstitutional, Period
Absolutely not."

Absolutely YES. Faith and religion should be banned out of any school and governmental institution. CHURCH and GOVERNMENT must be separate.

If otherwise, just watch what is happening in the countries where this is not the case:
Hate and violence, political discussions hidden or intentionally disguised in belief systems rather than politics.
A dangerous path.