Deteriorating Rights

[bartl]

Combine this with a steadily expanding official definition of "terrorism," increasingly focused on "domestic terrorism" with focus on such danger signs as criticism of the government, and it's pretty clear it's time to raise a stink on behalf of the Bill Of Rights. (It was time seven years ago, but it's never a bad time.)
Quite a few conservatives went publicly against many of the Patriot Act provisions and other acts, where the rights of Americans were only protected if the leaders were not a bunch of power-hungry pricks. Unfortunately, that is the type of person who usually ends up in power. And, it appears, the Obama administration is no exception.

[Lord Destiny]

Quite a few conservatives went publicly against many of the Patriot Act provisions and other acts

Too bad the conservative media outlets drowned them out, giving the overwhelming majority of air time to the likes of Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh.

Too bad these conservatives are demonized as "RINOs," and cannot step up to be the leadership of conservativism and/or Republicanism (for fear of obliteration by the likes of Coulter, Hannity, and especially Limbaugh).

Too bad the conservative voters still choose to support the creators and advocates of the Patriot Act by supporting their shows and giving them votes.

[Steven Grant]

Too bad the conservative media outlets drowned them out, giving the overwhelming majority of air time to the likes of Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh.

Too bad these conservatives are demonized as "RINOs," and cannot step up to be the leadership of conservativism and/or Republicanism (for fear of obliteration by the likes of Coulter, Hannity, and especially Limbaugh).

Too bad the conservative voters still choose to support the creators and advocates of the Patriot Act by supporting their shows and giving them votes.

Also, there is a difference between "Republican" and "conservative," and many different stripes of conservatism. But as you say, conservatives who vehemently disagree with Republican policies but continue to support Republican politicians are much of the problem. Then again, so are liberals who vehemently disagree with Democrat policies but continue to support Democratic politicians. But if only the most vile conservatives put their representatives on the spot for bad Congressional votes and supporting bad (in their eyes) policy, it's not surprising that Republican politicians cater to the most vile conservatives. More moderate conservatives and the vast majority of liberals don't raise a stink outside the election booth, so what do they expect?

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Vote third party people - make it viable for the politicians to run with them, and you'll start to get parties that actually reflect the views of their elected members, not one's that are just 'better than the other lot'.

[Village Idiot]

Only 20% of people will still admit they are Republicans. HAH! Serves 'em right for being such dicks.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Only 20% of people will still admit they are Republicans. HAH! Serves 'em right for being such dicks.

If you had compulsory voting, treating it as a responsibility, not just a right, then the Republicans would only get 20% of the vote!
HAH! Serves y'all right for being so obsessed with freedom of the individual.

[Eric D.]

If you had compulsory voting, treating it as a responsibility, not just a right, then the Republicans would only get 20% of the vote!
HAH! Serves y'all right for being so obsessed with freedom of the individual.

as opposed to freedom of the?......

republican/democrat it doesn't seem to matter. nowadays, it seems like our government is more of an oligarchy

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

as opposed to freedom of the?......

...freedom of the individual who still has to go and vote once every four years?

(T'was a joke)


republican/democrat it doesn't seem to matter. nowadays, it seems like our government is more of an oligarchy

The private sector brought it out.
They just haven't finished wording the press release yet.

[Steven Grant]

Vote third party people - make it viable for the politicians to run with them, and you'll start to get parties that actually reflect the views of their elected members, not one's that are just 'better than the other lot'.

Unfortunately, most third parties in this country as just neo-Nazi fronts... or are otherwise so dogmatic in their own way they might as well be neo-Nazis. That's the problem with American third parties, they're generally insane about a single issue of their choice and don't want to hear about anything else...

- Grant

[Eric D.]

Unfortunately, most third parties in this country as just neo-Nazi fronts... or are otherwise so dogmatic in their own way they might as well be neo-Nazis. That's the problem with American third parties, they're generally insane about a single issue of their choice and don't want to hear about anything else...

- Grant

are there any 3rd parties that you would say aren't neo-nazi fronts?

[EuropaBambaataa]

Just the other day I came up with the perfect political party. It'll be called either the Practical Party or the Party of Practical People, and it will concentrate on doing things that need to be done.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how I'd go about recruiting likeminded individuals.

[Steven Grant]

are there any 3rd parties that you would say aren't neo-nazi fronts?

As I said, there are those that aren't associated with neo-Nazism in any way, at least politically. But behaviorally they all have fairly narrow ideological litmus tests. I keep, for instance, having people raving up Ron Paul to me, not that he's a political party but it's evident that he has inspired a number of people to want him to front a third party based on libertarian principles. But Paul's libertarian "values" don't extend to a social agenda, where he's basically another stick-up-his-ass bible thumper.

I want to see a third party with an expansive, forward-thinking viewpoint, not another one built on a self-absorbed, restrictive, ideologically narrow and ultimately nostalgic viewpoint.

- Grant

[bartl]

Only 20% of people will still admit they are Republicans. HAH! Serves 'em right for being such dicks.
Since the Washington Post has refused to release the exact questions answered, or the way the respondents were chosen, the poll has to be classified as unscientific at best.

[bartl]

are there any 3rd parties that you would say aren't neo-nazi fronts?
The Green Party has struck me as kind of Marxist, at least from their own statements of principles and goals.

New York has a history of non-mainstream parties that have acted as kingmakers/breakers, including the Conservative party, the Liberal party, and the Right-To-Life party.

[Steven Grant]

The Green Party has struck me as kind of Marxist, at least from their own statements of principles and goals.

That's the thing. I basically approve of the ecological underpinnings of the Green Party, but they are often only marginally more tolerant of even varying shades of opinion (never mind completely disagreeable viewpoints) than PETA...

- Grant

[bartl]

Still, at least in the United States, there is one basic mistake that third parties make.

The original plan in the Consittution was based on the concept that people would be more interested in local elections than national ones. The power of the federal government was much more removed from the individual than it is today, so the system was geared towards people voting for others that they knew personally, or at least second hand.

The focus on national elections has resulted in people knowing the names of those at the top of the national government better than they know the names of the people in their local government. Keeping Congress from getting unmanageably large has furthered this; even in my grandparents' day, most people either knew their Representative or were friends with someone who did. Not even close, anymore.

And this is part of the problem with third parties; they tend to start at the top. rather than attempting to grow from the bottom (the Libertarians are an exception to this; unfortunately, for them, the viability of their philosophy is inversely proportional to the size and cultural diversity of the population governed by it, not unlike Marxism).

A third problem is that the United States was founded on the concept of the amateur politician; people who had previous success in the non-government world, who wanted to give back something to the country; those who wanted to serve rather than rule. They would serve for a term or two, then go back to their regular lives. That idea lasted for about 5 minutes or so. And the people who DO follow that model are often people who treat their positions as an experimenting ground (Mike Bloomberg of New York City being a great example; an extremely capable manager, and a very nice guy in person, he came in on the platform of becoming mayor to help fix things, but also used his position to enforce his own personal eccentricities on the population of the city).

[mikekerr3]

If you had compulsory voting, treating it as a responsibility, not just a right, then the Republicans would only get 20% of the vote!
HAH! Serves y'all right for being so obsessed with freedom of the individual.

Freedom of the idiviua; corporation maybe

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

That's the thing. I basically approve of the ecological underpinnings of the Green Party, but they are often only marginally more tolerant of even varying shades of opinion (never mind completely disagreeable viewpoints) than PETA...

- Grant

We had a Green Party like that, but they got their shit together and have a policies across the spectrum, all pretty left leaning, but not off the wall.
By doing that, they did quite well out of the Howard years - people wanted the exact opposite of him, and Labour was lost at sea, so they, and other third parties, picked up a few seats out of it all.

[bartl]

We had a Green Party like that, but they got their shit together and have a policies across the spectrum, all pretty left leaning, but not off the wall.
By doing that, they did quite well out of the Howard years - people wanted the exact opposite of him, and Labour was lost at sea, so they, and other third parties, picked up a few seats out of it all.
A parliamentary system becomes problematic when there are two parties, each of which has just shy of a majority. This gives a disproportionate amount of power to minor parties. It's like the old business problem: A owns 48% of a company, B owns 49% of the company, and C owns 3% of the company. Who has the most power? The answer is, of course, as any two can outvote the 3rd, they all have equal power.

And, please, note that I said "BECOMES problematic". The U.S. system becomes problematic under a different set of circumstances.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

A parliamentary system becomes problematic when there are two parties, each of which has just shy of a majority. This gives a disproportionate amount of power to minor parties. It's like the old business problem: A owns 48% of a company, B owns 49% of the company, and C owns 3% of the company. Who has the most power? The answer is, of course, as any two can outvote the 3rd, they all have equal power.

And, please, note that I said "BECOMES problematic". The U.S. system becomes problematic under a different set of circumstances.

It really depends on the quality of those member who hold the sway vote.
If you've got short sighted knobs with the sway - like say Barnaby Joyce*, or Stephen Fielding (the former had it during Howard's last term and the latter has it now) - then it can get very boring as they hold up bills and push for changes that either help their electorate or pet causes, then it's a total hassle.

(In the examples given, Joyce was too scared to ever actually block the bills he talked about - even one that was extremely unpopular with public, as it was a big employment overhaul, which wasn't discussed at the election and wasn't given enough time to debate - and now that Labour has gotten in, they've overturned them anyway and he's lost all standing... and with Fielding, his pet focus is 'families' and all he succeeds in doing is holding bills up pushing for ideas to be added that he thinks will help, and then eventually ends up passing the bill without them when he sees public opinion is against him).

That said, you get the right person or party holding the sway vote in the Senate, they can be quite good at 'trimming the fat' from a Bill, closing loop holes, and making sure it covers a broader base.

You're big mistake Bart is thinking in your example, that all power lies with the three parties - if the parties have to band together to get things past, they all end up bending over backwards to please the public, because at that next election, they all want to win.

*I didn't make up that name.

[Eric D.]

As I said, there are those that aren't associated with neo-Nazism in any way, at least politically. But behaviorally they all have fairly narrow ideological litmus tests. I keep, for instance, having people raving up Ron Paul to me, not that he's a political party but it's evident that he has inspired a number of people to want him to front a third party based on libertarian principles. But Paul's libertarian "values" don't extend to a social agenda, where he's basically another stick-up-his-ass bible thumper.

- Grant

I think Ron Pauls writings, stances, and voting record indicates a more socially liberal leaning stance than you may think.


Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage:
NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage
NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman
NO on allowing school prayer
Opposes death penalty at state and federal level

Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs
$500B on War on Drugs since 1970s has been a total failure
Legalize industrial hemp
War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights
Legalize medical marijuana
Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record
Rated +30 by NORML, indicating a pro-drug-reform stance
Allow rehabilitated drug convicts get student loans
Distribute sterile syringes to reduce AIDS and hepatitis
Sponsored bill letting states legalize industrial hemp
NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests
NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism

Bring all troops home from abroad & save $100B’s every year:
End draft registration; all-volunteer forces
Terminate Selective Service
NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent:
Opposes Patriot Act & Iraq War
NO on authorizing military force in Iraq:
NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date:
YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days:
YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq:

Distribute sterile syringes to reduce AIDS and hepatitis:
Sponsored bill letting states legalize industrial hemp:
NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests:
NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism:

NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions
YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info:


NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research
Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty

the biggest streak of social conservatism is when it comes to abortion, - and that's likely because he was a OBGYN, Delivering 4000 babies.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

the biggest streak of social conservatism is when it comes to abortion, - and that's likely because he was a OBGYN, Delivering 4000 babies.

What's his explanation for the stupidity of being against embryonic stem cell research?

[Eric D.]

What's his explanation for the stupidity of being against embryonic stem cell research?

i don't know.-it may go along with his stance that life begins at conception.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

i don't know.-it may go along with his stance that life begins at conception.

But those cells would still be disposed of - except now they are going to some use before they get chucked.

As an anti-abortionist, but someone who believes strongly in the freedom of the individual, is he anti-abortion altogether?
Surely he'd also be pro women's right to choose, because otherwise you're legislating on what another person can/can't do with their own body?

[Eric D.]

But those cells would still be disposed of - except now they are going to some use before they get chucked.

As an anti-abortionist, but someone who believes strongly in the freedom of the individual, is he anti-abortion altogether?
Surely he'd also be pro women's right to choose, because otherwise you're legislating on what another person can/can't do with their own body?



"As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it."

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

"As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it."

That's some pretty flawed reasoning right there - the first part of his first sentence has no bearing on his beliefs in the second part of it.
He also ignores that there is a big difference between an unborn baby in it's first and last trimesters (also ignoring the abundance of changes that happen just before birth).

But what's his stance on the legality of abortion?
He believes life begins at conception, but what about the rights of the person carrying the child?
Does he believes the clump of cells he thinks are alive supersede the rights of the mother?

[Steven Grant]

NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research
Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty

If he'd move "No limits on a woman's right to choose" and "Approve stem cell research," I'd give him a reconsider. I've never heard him vocally espouse that list of moderate social positions you outlined. I have heard him stridently call for outlawing abortion and banning stem cell research. I don't see medical marijuana as a suitable trade for those two things. Is he in favor of birth control education. If someone's going to insist on banning abortion, they'd better make birth control very accessible.

That list is awfully repetitive, by the way, rephrasing several of the same things over and over. A couple of surprises, like complete freedom of minors to cross state lines to receive abortions. I'm assuming the last on the black list is a typo?

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

"As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception..."

Huh?

Someone told me to buy some Airborne tablets before flying to San Francisco last week. Those fizzies you drop in water that boost your immune system with vitamins and keep you from catching diseases in compressed airplane compartments. (Didn't work.) The package for that always cracks me up: "Developed by a teacher!" I don't know why Paul's career as an OB-GYN should be a license to decide when life begins. Why should we take his word over other OB-GYNs, especially when his viewpoint is informed at least as much by his religious beliefs as by his practical experience?

And if the unborn have inheritance rights, how exactly do they go about enforcing them?

- Grant

[Eric D.]

not a typo...he voted yes for

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures.

[Eric D.]

Huh?

Someone told me to buy some Airborne tablets before flying to San Francisco last week. Those fizzies you drop in water that boost your immune system with vitamins and keep you from catching diseases in compressed airplane compartments. (Didn't work.) The package for that always cracks me up: "Developed by a teacher!" I don't know why Paul's career as an OB-GYN should be a license to decide when life begins. Why should we take his word over other OB-GYNs, especially when his viewpoint is informed at least as much by his religious beliefs as by his practical experience?

And if the unborn have inheritance rights, how exactly do they go about enforcing them?

- Grant

i think what it boils down to for him was an event early in his career while studying, where he witnessed a partial birth abortion. in a book he goes into detail about his experience. it obviously had an impact on him.

[Steven Grant]

not a typo...he voted yes for

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures.

How exactly is this a progressive social position? Especially in light of bills routinely before Congress now to cut off federal funding, Medicare involvement, etc. for health care providers, etc. who do provide those things? So it's okay to discriminate against those who provide abortion services and birth control information, but it's not okay to discriminate against those opposed to them? What kind of crap is that?

Wait a minute. Now I'm puzzled. Why would we need to protect physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures? Wouldn't the only training programs that provide abortion procedure training be abortion technique training? Why would anyone whose "conscience" opposed such training be training anyone to perform abortions in the first place? That whole thing seems nonsensical... unless the object is to "legalize" "conscience" then plant anti-abortion activists in control over abortion training programs... If that's the case, it's a scam. If it's not the case, there's no need for it.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

i think what it boils down to for him was an event early in his career while studying, where he witnessed a partial birth abortion.

But how does he get from a partial birth abortion to declaring life begins at conception? That's still a religious stance and not a scientific or medical one. Regardless, it, and supporting the practice of medical practitioners calling a "moral out" if they don't want to provide abortion services, fill birth control prescriptions, etc., is stating that in a medical situation the doctor or provider's moral stance takes precedence over the patient's treatment.

Now if they said, "that's against my conscience" and got out of the way, that would be fine, but I remember when all this started coming up, and it was suggested that those who opposed abortion, birth control, etc., specifically train for nurse positions, pharmacist positions, etc., not necessarily to be doctors but medical adjunct positions, specifically to be obstructionist to prevent people from getting the medical help they wanted and needed, and claim moral grounds for it.

But the idea that a medical practitioner/staff member's own moral viewpoint supercedes the needs and wishes of the patient, that's not a trend I'm eager to see take root, because it could easily go far beyond the issue of abortion.

- Grant

[Michael P]

not a typo...he voted yes for

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures.

So he's another one of those "libertarians" who's against government intrusion into people's private affairs, except when he's not.

Good to know.

[Eric D.]

But the idea that a medical practitioner/staff member's own moral viewpoint supercedes the needs and wishes of the patient, that's not a trend I'm eager to see take root, because it could easily go far beyond the issue of abortion.

- Grant


So he's another one of those "libertarians" who's against government intrusion into people's private affairs, except when he's not.

Good to know.

Both of these comments make valid points. and based off of information about Paul's stance on abortion, it appears that although Ron Paul supports a great deal of libertarian ideals, he doesn't fully embrace a libertarian philosophy.

True libertarians (aka classical liberals) are pro-maximum social freedom and against the govt restricting people's personal lives based on "morality" (libertarians are probably more pro-liberty and more pro-individual rights than the modern liberal left is).

[Pól Rua]

True libertarians (aka classical liberals) are pro-maximum social freedom and against the govt restricting people's personal lives based on "morality" (libertarians are probably more pro-liberty and more pro-individual rights than the modern liberal left is).

True Libertarians are also like True Communists.
Almost impossible to see behind the vast assembly of authoritarian nutbags and tinfoil hatters who'd rather use the word to justify their prejudices and bludgeon their enemies.

[Iangould]

But how does he get from a partial birth abortion to declaring life begins at conception? That's still a religious stance and not a scientific or medical one.


Not necessarily, it could be a cynical exercise in pandering to his far-right constituents.

Much like his stance on earmarks.

[Charles RB]

True Libertarians are also like True Communists.

Would a true libertarian even be trying to get into high office?

[Steven Grant]

Not necessarily, it could be a cynical exercise in pandering to his far-right constituents.

Much like his stance on earmarks.

I agree but for rhetorical reasons I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

- Grant

[dr. 3]

But the idea that a medical practitioner/staff member's own moral viewpoint supercedes the needs and wishes of the patient, that's not a trend I'm eager to see take root, because it could easily go far beyond the issue of abortion.

- Grant


That's an issue that I think we'll see coming up more in the future, unfortunately. I frame it for it for trainees (when it comes up) like this: a practitioner has the right not to participate in a procedure or treatment they find morally reprehensible, true enough-- but they also have a moral obligation and duty to respect the rights and autonomy of patients and the provide them with appropriate, complete medical information regardless of their personal beliefs, including referrals, without judgement.

If one's personal beliefs extend to finding providing information morally repugnant, or they can't reframe from injecting moral judgement, then they need a new line of work. There are plenty of less "morally ambiguous" fields out there.

[mikekerr3]

True Libertarians are also like True Communists.
Almost impossible to see behind the vast assembly of authoritarian nutbags and tinfoil hatters who'd rather use the word to justify their prejudices and bludgeon their enemies.

Regrettably true

[Steven Grant]

If one's personal beliefs extend to finding providing information morally repugnant, or they can't reframe from injecting moral judgement, then they need a new line of work. There are plenty of less "morally ambiguous" fields out there.

I agree with that completely, but I'm sure the general argument against that perspective is that if only people willing to provide information on the morally reprehensible alternatives are in those positions, then the morally reprehensible alternatives will continue. You may recall a few years ago anti-abortion activists were recommending their followers train for and obtain pharmacist jobs so they could refuse to countenance the sale of birth control methods and morning after pills.

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

You may recall a few years ago anti-abortion activists were recommending their followers train for and obtain pharmacist jobs so they could refuse to countenance the sale of birth control methods and morning after pills.

- Grant

Heck, Peter Bagge's gonzo-journalism/commentary-comic 'Everyone Is Stupid Except For Me' has some true horror stories with people being put through all sorts of embarrassing measures by store policies, to try and stop people using contraceptives.
One major chain made a the boyfriend stand away from the counter, in case he was trying to force the girl into using contraceptives, whilst the girl had a prepared speech read to her by the cashier about other alternatives available to her.

How can you be against contraceptives, and against abortion, and not know you've gone around the bend and entered into a state of sheer stupidity that's totally out of touch with reality, is beyond me!

[Eric D.]

Would a true libertarian even be trying to get into high office?

heh. not likely

[bartl]

How can you be against contraceptives, and against abortion, and not know you've gone around the bend and entered into a state of sheer stupidity that's totally out of touch with reality, is beyond me!
Well, I'm generally in favor of abortion being a medical and moral, not a legal, decision, and I'm also in favor of readily available contraceptives. However, given that, the answer to your question is that there is no requirement that people have sex with each other.

On the other hand, I'm against any kind of forced organ donation, including blood. I suspect that many who are against abortion might be in favor of such things.

[Village Idiot]

There are too many people on this earth, so I am in favor of more abortions.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

However, given that, the answer to your question is that there is no requirement that people have sex with each other.

You try tell my body that.

Reproduction of the species/genes is the one thing we're here to do - so surely nature would want us to practice and make sure we've got it right before going committing to it.

On the other hand, I'm against any kind of forced organ donation, including blood. I suspect that many who are against abortion might be in favor of such things.

I'm all for abortion being legal, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to forced organ donations or blood donations.

Heck, I'm surprised we don't already have priority systems in place for those who do donate, as there never seems to be enough blood at the blood bank.

If comes down to two people both in need of a certain type of blood, surely it should go to the person whose donated blood for others?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

There are too many people on this earth, so I am in favor of more abortions.

You say that, but as one MP and one former MP will tell you, that will lead to a Muslim takeover!!! (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/abortion-will-lead-to-muslim-nation/2006/02/13/1139679540920.html)


The former MP's husband was later fined for 'playing a prank' during the election after that, distributing fake leaflets from the 'Islamic Federation of Australia' urging people to vote for the other party (it had their logo on it), because they will forgive the Bali bombers and let other terrorists run free.
She was then voted out.
(Was also a contestant on 'Ice Skating With Celebrities', continuing Australia's tradition of re-branding racist female politicians as 'wacky characters' on reality shows).

[bartl]

There are too many people on this earth, so I am in favor of more abortions.
Well, I don't consider the fetus to be part of the mother's body, but I do consider the womb to be; the mother is acting as a life support system for the fetus. Therefore, it makes sense that any conditions under which life support can be removed from a patient would be valid for a reason for abortion as well (unless someone thinks that the fetus has MORE rights than someone who has already been born, which some do, as well as some who believe that the right to an abortion is somehow greater than the right to an emergency appendectomy. I personally think both are somewhat fanatical).

Now, in the case of abortion, we have a situation where the life support system is another human being. Therefore, the best "real world" equivalent I can find is organ transplants; if the state cannot force someone to provide an organ transplant against their will, then logically, it follows that they cannot force a woman to bear a fetus against HER will. Note that this also does not give the woman a right to kill the fetus (regardless of what the President believes); it's just that, in most abortions, removing the fetus also kills it. Also note that, technically speaking, a C-Section is an abortion (as the pregnancy is technically terminated by human intervention).

[Steven Grant]

unless someone thinks that the fetus has MORE rights than someone who has already been born

The general attitude of the anti-abortion movement is that it's their responsibility to make sure the "unborn" are protected and no one can get an abortion. But the moment the "unborn" become the "born" they're someone else's problem. So, yes, I'd say they think the fetus has more rights than the born. My feeling is that if they feel they have a responsibility to force all pregnancies to come to term, they have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of any child born due to their interference.

They generally not only don't see it that way but start screaming socialism when it's suggested.

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

The general attitude of the anti-abortion movement is that it's their responsibility to make sure the "unborn" are protected and no one can get an abortion. But the moment the "unborn" become the "born" they're someone else's problem. So, yes, I'd say they think the fetus has more rights than the born. My feeling is that if they feel they have a responsibility to force all pregnancies to come to term, they have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of any child born due to their interference.

They generally not only don't see it that way but start screaming socialism when it's suggested.

- Grant

How someone can be anti-abortion, and yet oppose easy access to contraceptives for all (even teens) - or oppose contraceptives altogether - and also be against welfare/social security/subsidies for new born children, is just plain beyond me.

If abortion is murder, and life begins at conception, then even if you don't like contraceptives, surely you should be able to see them as the lesser evil, and much better than abortion.

[Steven Grant]

How someone can be anti-abortion, and yet oppose easy access to contraceptives for all (even teens) - or oppose contraceptives altogether - and also be against welfare/social security/subsidies for new born children, is just plain beyond me.

Okay, this one's simple. In more ways than one.

The point is:

The object of intercourse is procreation. You are not to intercourse if you are not interested in procreation. (At one point, more or less official Christian doctrine was that it was sinful for even married couples to screw unless they were trying to have children.)

Contraception interferes with God's great plan, which is that men and women should have children together. In the whacko right wing framework contraception is abortion. There is no practical difference between them. Both allow couples to engage in intercourse without producing offspring.

So in their eyes contraception is an invitation to intercourse.

Don't forget that in some interpretations childbearing is a burden God placed on Eve when he banished her from Eden. As much as they may speak of anti-abortion in order to save the innocent unborn, there is also the strong underlying "morality" that childbirth is the wages of sin for the woman who dares to have (never mind enjoy) sex. I don't know that many of the Religious Right consciously espouse this, but a few do and, believe me, the sentiment is fairly widespread when you start prying with questions.

Once impregnated, the woman has a duty to bring that child to term. Once born, however, the child is the responsibility of those who birthed it, and people who have children they cannot care for should not have children.

Translation: you should not be having sex, and if you do you should be punished for it. Having to raise a possibly unwanted child that you don't have the resources to raise is part of that punishment.

If abortion is murder, and life begins at conception, then even if you don't like contraceptives, surely you should be able to see them as the lesser evil, and much better than abortion.

No, by their outlook the lesser evil is to avoid sex, and if you cannot avoid sex you deserve what you get.

If you accept the underlying premises, the logic makes sense. The underlying premises are kind of cruel and petty, but hey...

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

If you accept the underlying premises, the logic makes sense. The underlying premises are kind of cruel and petty, but hey...

- Grant

I've got to stop assuming people have at least tried to have rational thought behind their arguments, but if you start with something necessary as being evil...

[Steven Grant]

I've got to stop assuming people have at least tried to have rational thought behind their arguments, but if you start with something necessary as being evil...

There is rationale thought behind their arguments, there just isn't a rationale premise to their thought. Though I'm sure they'd be more than happy to argue it's very rational.

Though quite often even in arguments we agree with, the first premise isn't quite rational. And I'm sure they'd argue against the necessity of rational underpinnings, or that the underpinnings are rational, as it is the received word of God that commands them thus, and how much more rational do your underpinnings need to be? Though I'm not quite sure where in the Bible God proscribes sex out of wedlock among unmarried parties, though certainly the Ten Commandments proscribe adultery, though, as Crumb amply demonstrates in THE BOOK OF GENESIS, the players in Genesis didn't seem to think there was any proscription against either of them.

Then again, the Ten Commandments aren't really the Ten Commandments...

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Though I'm not quite sure where in the Bible God proscribes sex out of wedlock among unmarried parties, though certainly the Ten Commandments proscribe adultery, though, as Crumb amply demonstrates in THE BOOK OF GENESIS, the players in Genesis didn't seem to think there was any proscription against either of them.

- Grant

Speaking of, as I was wondering this the other day, how does Crumb treat the parts where it talks about some characters living 900 years? (until everyone kept sinning of course so he took it away and made the max 120... even before they'd thought of eternal life, they knew people wanted a god who'd give them extra life!)

[jmyoung]

That's the thing. I basically approve of the ecological underpinnings of the Green Party, but they are often only marginally more tolerant of even varying shades of opinion (never mind completely disagreeable viewpoints) than PETA...

- Grant


I'm a bit late to this party but as a registered Green in the US (but currently overseas in an employment capacity) I have to say it's not nearly as monolithic and intolerant as you make it sound. The GP suffers from the same problems many Lefty groups have in that they fight amongst themselves as they do the opposition. Do some people hold rigid beliefs? Sure. But there are people like that in every party. Basically, there are ten key values that are supposed to guide political decisions. Different personalities focus on different aspects of those values and different locations face different issues. So local groups will focus more on particular issues that affect their community and are important to their members.

And the upstate NY GP I was most active in was primarily focused on local elections.

[Steven Grant]

Speaking of, as I was wondering this the other day, how does Crumb treat the parts where it talks about some characters living 900 years? (until everyone kept sinning of course so he took it away and made the max 120... even before they'd thought of eternal life, they knew people wanted a god who'd give them extra life!)

He just says what the Bible says. "And he lived 900 years, until the end of his days," that sort of thing. There's nothing that I recall about God intentionally stripping men of thousand year lifespans, its just that each generation lives a little shorter than predecessors, until by the end of Genesis they're down to a couple hundred years each. I assume the implication is an unexpelled Adam and Eve would've been immortal, so the further time moves from Eden the shorter the general lifespan. I guess the logic of that is that over the last couple hundred years mankind has been moving steadily back toward Eden. Just eight or nine hundred years in lifespan to go...

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

He just says what the Bible says. "And he lived 900 years, until the end of his days," that sort of thing. There's nothing that I recall about God intentionally stripping men of thousand year lifespans, its just that each generation lives a little shorter than predecessors, until by the end of Genesis they're down to a couple hundred years each.

Pretty sure he tells Noah he's getting rid of it - he was still a bit snarky at us for making him kill everyone in a flood.


I assume the implication is an unexpelled Adam and Eve would've been immortal, so the further time moves from Eden the shorter the general lifespan. I guess the logic of that is that over the last couple hundred years mankind has been moving steadily back toward Eden. Just eight or nine hundred years in lifespan to go...

- Grant

So first we de-evolved, and now we're evolving again?

[Steven Grant]

Pretty sure he tells Noah he's getting rid of it - he was still a bit snarky at us for making him kill everyone in a flood.

Don't remember reading that in Crumb's complete edition. Checked it and, no, God makes no such pronouncements.

So first we de-evolved, and now we're evolving again?

Just to be pedantic, the word is devolved, and, apparently, yes...

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Don't remember reading that in Crumb's complete edition. Checked it and, no, God makes no such pronouncements.

That's what a Christian friend told me when I asked him about the age thing.

Just looked it up, Noah was just the last person to live for hundreds of years (950 of them - he was 650 at the time of the flood!), it decreased rapidly after him, until you got to Moses who made it to 120.
Maybe one of the latter books does a quick fix up on that one.

[bartl]

I've got to stop assuming people have at least tried to have rational thought behind their arguments, but if you start with something necessary as being evil...
There are plenty of people who are against abortion, but in favor of contraception. Even the Roman Catholic Church allowed abortion up to the time that the fetus/baby/whatever started kicking (the "quickening"). It used to be the province of midwives (Hildegarde of Bingen's 12th century writings contain the methodologies they used), but when allopathic medicine came to its own in the 19th century and midwives were being phased out, rules against all abortions started coming around; I don't believe it was a coincidence.

I have been trying to find backing material, but years ago I read something about the French cardinals in the late 19th century trading backing of the Doctrine of Infallibility in exchange for the Vatican banning all abortions; until I (or someone else) does, that needs to be considered just a rumor, though.

Most people, at least from what the polls have said, consider abortion a sometimes necessary evil; essentially never a good choice, but sometimes the best choice available. As I have mentioned, I go by the principle that conditions under which a human being can be removed from a life support system are conditions under which abortion should be allowed. I also believe that the right to abortion means that the mother should not be required to carry the fetus against her will; it does NOT give her the right to kill the fetus. If artificial womb technology becomes practical, it will be interesting, legally speaking, what that does to abortion.

[bartl]

I assume the implication is an unexpelled Adam and Eve would've been immortal, so the further time moves from Eden the shorter the general lifespan.
The way I learned it, Adam and Eve were, like animals, unaware of their own mortality, until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, demonstrating their ability to access free will, and became God's partners in creation. Part of this was awareness of their own mortality and a lot of hard work.

[bartl]

So first we de-evolved, and now we're evolving again?
Ah, you've been reading Theosophical writings?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Most people, at least from what the polls have said, consider abortion a sometimes necessary evil; essentially never a good choice, but sometimes the best choice available.

I don't know anyone who thinks it's a particularly great experience.

If artificial womb technology becomes practical, it will be interesting, legally speaking, what that does to abortion.

Probably nothing, as we're already an over populated planet with not enough resources, and too many orphans as it is.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Ah, you've been reading Theosophical writings?

Actually it came to me whilst flicking through a recently returned (from being loaned to a friend) copy of Peter Bagge's 'Everyone Is Stupid (Except For Me)', which is a collection of his gag strips and comic-form journalism* that he did for a Libertarian publication.
I think one of the strips mentioned something about age... or something about Genesis**... and that got me thinking about the long life's people had and then suddenly didn't, and sent out a few SMS's to Christian friends to ask how they dealt that with that in their heads.

As for Theosophical writings... I'll admit I just had to look up the term.
Going by the definition on Wikipedia, I wouldn't read any theosophical books, as I disagree from the get go that religions are formed with the intent of helping humanity evolve - and even if they were, I do not believe that they contain a portion of a 'greater truth'.

Seems like more fence sitting bleh, along the lines of agnosticism.


*Is there a set term for journalism pieces done in comic form?

** I know at one point he mocks the morality of offering your daughters up to stop a house guest being raped (which always gets a big laugh from me).

[Steven Grant]

That's what a Christian friend told me when I asked him about the age thing.

Just looked it up, Noah was just the last person to live for hundreds of years (950 of them - he was 650 at the time of the flood!), it decreased rapidly after him, until you got to Moses who made it to 120.

Let's see...

Abraham lives to 175, Isaac 180, and Jacob 147. So a lot less than Noah but considerably better than us.

- Grant

[Lord Destiny]

The way I learned it, Adam and Eve were, like animals, unaware of their own mortality, until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, demonstrating their ability to access free will, and became God's partners in creation. Part of this was awareness of their own mortality and a lot of hard work.

I've been discussing this of late.

Essentially, Adam and Eve never reached the age of accountability--at least so far as knowing good from evil (right from wrong) prior to the eating of the forbidden fruit. This completely undermines any logical basis to this story... to be forever punished for what the could not yet understand.

[Lord Destiny]

Going by the definition on Wikipedia, I wouldn't read any theosophical books, as I disagree from the get go that religions are formed with the intent of helping humanity evolve


Considering how the "reign of Christianity" known as the Dark and Middle ages set us all back for over a thousand years, I have to agree with you.

Pagan Greeks and Romans moved humanity forward, only for us to go backwards under The Holy Mother Church. We only started moving forward again with humanism, the scientific revolution, and the enlightenment.

But perhaps it can be said that the message of Jesus about kindness, forgiveness, and generosity have pushed us forward in certain ways. (Unfortunately, people who adhere to those instructions aren't in positions of leadership...)

[bartl]

I've been discussing this of late.

Essentially, Adam and Eve never reached the age of accountability--at least so far as knowing good from evil (right from wrong) prior to the eating of the forbidden fruit. This completely undermines any logical basis to this story... to be forever punished for what the could not yet understand.
Consider the following:

1) The fruit had no special abilities. What Adam and Eve did was learn that they were capable of going against the commands of the deity.

2) They didn't fail the test; they passed it by discovering the divinity within themselves. Therefore, rather than being the "fall of humanity", it was the "rise of humanity."

Now, my own current opinion of the story is somewhat different, but that's the way I learned it the first time.

[bartl]

Considering how the "reign of Christianity" known as the Dark and Middle ages set us all back for over a thousand years, I have to agree with you.

Pagan Greeks and Romans moved humanity forward, only for us to go backwards under The Holy Mother Church. We only started moving forward again with humanism, the scientific revolution, and the enlightenment.

But perhaps it can be said that the message of Jesus about kindness, forgiveness, and generosity have pushed us forward in certain ways. (Unfortunately, people who adhere to those instructions aren't in positions of leadership...)
One of the founders of the Theosophical Society would agree with you. He wrote, I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that cause became a power. It is religion under whatever form and in whatsoever nation. It is the sacerdotal caste, the priesthood and the churches; it is in those illusions that man looks upon as sacred, that he has to search out the source of that multitude of evils which is the great curse of humanity and that almost overwhelms mankind. Ignorance created Gods and cunning took advantage of the opportunity.

[Steven Grant]

Essentially, Adam and Eve never reached the age of accountability--at least so far as knowing good from evil (right from wrong) prior to the eating of the forbidden fruit. This completely undermines any logical basis to this story... to be forever punished for what the could not yet understand.

Not exactly.

The moral of the Adam/Eve story is that it doesn't matter whether you understand the point of what Yahweh tells you to do or not do. You simply do or don't do it, period. They weren't punished for attaining the knowledge of good and evil, they were punished for disobediently eating of the fruit when they were told not to.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Pagan Greeks and Romans moved humanity forward, only for us to go backwards under The Holy Mother Church. We only started moving forward again with humanism, the scientific revolution, and the enlightenment.

Mmmm... not that I have any love for the Church, but that's something of an exaggeration. First of all, by "us," you mean Romanized Europe, and it wasn't the Church that "set us back" but Rome, by its inability to cohesively adapt to changing circumstances. Part of this, maybe much, can certainly be ascribed to the Christianization of Rome and the increasingly rigid social structure the Church encouraged, but the seeds were planted by the Empire itself, in some ways by the whole concept of the Empire, long before Christianity took root.

Along a line line of argument, had Rome survived there's not the slightest guarantee - and rather strong probability otherwise, I'd guess - that history would have proceeded along roughly parallel lines to an equal stage of development and its logical 2000 year extrapolation, only the Christianized Rome/Middle Ages bit snipped out...

But perhaps it can be said that the message of Jesus about kindness, forgiveness, and generosity have pushed us forward in certain ways. (Unfortunately, people who adhere to those instructions aren't in positions of leadership...)

That's because the Church is Pauline in its origins, not Jesuit. (Referring to Jesus and not to the Church Order, of course...)

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Consider the following:

1) The fruit had no special abilities. What Adam and Eve did was learn that they were capable of going against the commands of the deity.

2) They didn't fail the test; they passed it by discovering the divinity within themselves. Therefore, rather than being the "fall of humanity", it was the "rise of humanity."

Now, my own current opinion of the story is somewhat different, but that's the way I learned it the first time.

You could add that Jahweh was not actually God but an insane demiurge who wrongly believed he had created the world, who punished Adam and Eve because they had won, via the apple, the ability to appreciate a difference between Jehovah and the Real God, whose emissary was the serpent. And that Jesus was in truth the "son" of the Real God, come to redeem mankind from the yoke of slavery to Jehovah.

Gnosticism lives!

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

But perhaps it can be said that the message of Jesus about kindness, forgiveness, and generosity have pushed us forward in certain ways. (Unfortunately, people who adhere to those instructions aren't in positions of leadership...)

Might not be the best thing for them personally though - last time god walked the earth, he was kind and loving and leprosy curing of the people who didn't follow the bible, and ripped the shit out of anyone who did.

Not exactly.

The moral of the Adam/Eve story is that it doesn't matter whether you understand the point of what Yahweh tells you to do or not do. You simply do or don't do it, period. They weren't punished for attaining the knowledge of good and evil, they were punished for disobediently eating of the fruit when they were told not to.

- Grant

Well, disobeying got them kicked out the garden, but before they ate the fruit, it was a sin to be naked, but they weren't sinners because they didn't know that.
So I think the lesson is, if you don't want to sin, don't read the bible - because if you don't know it's wrong, it's not.


So to me, both Testaments send out clear messages that you shouldn't be reading them.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

You could add that Jahweh was not actually God but an insane demiurge who wrongly believed he had created the world, who punished Adam and Eve because they had won, via the apple, the ability to appreciate a difference between Jehovah and the Real God, whose emissary was the serpent. And that Jesus was in truth the "son" of the Real God, come to redeem mankind from the yoke of slavery to Jehovah.

Gnosticism lives!

- Grant

The only issue I see with that, is that the real god then let his emissary be turned into a snake and never freed him!

It can't be the devil in disguise, because it's punishment for tempting the nudists was that it became a snake like we know them today.

[Steven Grant]

Well, disobeying got them kicked out the garden, but before they ate the fruit, it was a sin to be naked, but they weren't sinners because they didn't know that.

No, checked and there's nowhere God actually forbids nudity. He doesn't mind it at all. But once they eat of the fruit (not an apple, actually, just fruit) of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they become aware of and embarrassed by their nakedness. Suggesting they became aware of their sexual differences and sex became a concern. Anyway, Adam/Eve are the ones who first cloth their loins, and that's what tips off the Omniscient One that they've been nibbling at the wrong fruit.

It might be suggested that God opposed nakedness because, tailor that he is, he provides them with clothes made from animal skins as he kicks them out of Eden. You can take that as meaning God's against nakedness, or you can take that as a smidgen of forgiveness and compassion about the more inhospitable climate they're being ushered into.

But that chapter shows signs of being cobbled together from multiple sources and not edited especially well, as much of the first quarter of Genesis reads. There's this interesting and very confusing statement from God as Adam and Eve are evicted:

Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he may reach out and take as well from the tree of life and live forever!

Huh?!

Completely incongruous with everything else in the chapter, and rather contrary to the rest of the meaning of the Eden story.

(Emphases mine, by the way.)

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

The only issue I see with that, is that the real god then let his emissary be turned into a snake and never freed him!

It can't be the devil in disguise, because it's punishment for tempting the nudists was that it became a snake like we know them today.

The Bible doesn't associate Satan with the Serpent, or with the Accuser in The Book Of Job. Or Leviathan, or the angel Lucifer, or other malign spiritual entities that frequent the Old Testament (many of which, like the Accuser, are emissaries of Jehovah). (Not even sure if Lucifer's a character in the Bible.) That's all Christian, and mostly post-New Testament. In the New Testament, The Adversary - AKA the Tempter, or the Tester Of Faith - is called Satan, but Satan isn't a Old Testament character; he comes from millennial apocryphal Jewish tradition. The Adversary/Satan (or, in Egyptian mythology, Set, suggesting some validity to the theory the Christ myth is drawn at least in part from the Egyptian Horus myth, where Horus and Set are adversaries) is called a devil, but the New Testament is crawling with devils. Not the Devil.

While his encounter with Jesus suggests the notion of Satan as the lord of this world, that's not specified in the New Testament; what Satan does with Jesus is not much more, really, than the Adversary does with Job, except that the Adversary obviously doesn't have permission to cover Jesus with boils or murder his family.

Satan's later ascension in power and status can be attributed to the influence of Mithraism, Christianity's main rival for influence in the post-millennial Roman world, and itself strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism. Mithraism was widely embraced in the Roman military, much for its militaristic elements, while Christianity was much more widespread in the civilian world. (Matter of fact, when Constantine, who himself belonged to the cult of Sol Invinctus, the Invincible Sun, made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, his other choice, strongly supported by many of his men, was Mithraism, by that time very entrenched in the Roman army. Christianity won out, but it could've gone either way. This repeated a few centuries later in Gaul, where Clovis - Louis I - the first king of France, also chose between Roman Christianity and Arian Christianity, the latter very entrenched among Germanic tribes. Had Clovis chosen the latter instead of listening to his wife, that would've probably been the end of The Church in Europe.)

As for the snake, the Eden story stinks of Freudian symbolism. If The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil involves the discovery of sex (creating the Buddhist cycle of sex, birth and death), then what is the tree, and what is its fruit? The "tree," discovered by Eve and "the serpent" can be interpreted as an erect penis, the fruit being an orgasm. Eve has one, then gives Adam one. Symbolically, the tree and the serpent are the same thing.

You can get the same allusions in blues songs like John Lee Hooker's 'Crawling King Snake'...

Anyway, if you go all Gnostic on that, you can conclude that the Real God gave Adam a boner... that's what the snake thing was all about...

- Grant

[bartl]

You could add that Jahweh was not actually God but an insane demiurge who wrongly believed he had created the world, who punished Adam and Eve because they had won, via the apple, the ability to appreciate a difference between Jehovah and the Real God, whose emissary was the serpent. And that Jesus was in truth the "son" of the Real God, come to redeem mankind from the yoke of slavery to Jehovah.
That's also close to the Promethean view of Satan (the god who sacrifices himself to bring divinity to humanity).

My own favorite theory (other than it's all fiction) is that the being who spoke to the Israelites was an angel/deva/demiurge/whatever, and tried to give a message of a basic unity of reality, and the being was confused with the unity. The rules therein were rules of self-discipline for a theurgistic priesthood; I prefer Hillel's way of looking at it (do not do to others what is hateful to yourself. That is the law; the rest is just commentary). When you look at it that way, a lot of the rules make more sense (for example, if you read the language of the rules on not mixing milk with meat, and think of them in the light of Hillel's suggestion, they go from a dietary restriction to a warning against schadenfreud).

[bartl]

Satan's later ascension in power and status can be attributed to the influence of Mithraism, Christianity's main rival for influence in the post-millennial Roman world, and itself strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism. Mithraism was widely embraced in the Roman military, much for its militaristic elements, while Christianity was much more widespread in the civilian world.
There is considerable evidence (notably the framing story to the Book of Job) of the Zoroastrian influence on Judaism before the birth of Jesus. Also, note that Christianity took on a LOT of Mithraism when it was first formalized. Judaism had a lot of trouble taking evil as a separate force from God, so they made the Adversary an aspect of God rather than a free-willed opponent. The higher levels of Roman Catholicism and several Protestant religions that hold that man has free will also hold that Satan has no free will.

Having observed a number of teachers who apparently started out trying to do some good, and ended up falling into the pit of their own hype (Sathya Sai Baba and Bagwan Rajneesh both come to mind, and I witnessed it happen to Andrew Cohen), I believe that the temptation of Jesus in the desert is the temptation anybody who sets themselves up as a religious teacher/leader. I remember when Benjamin Creme was telling a story about his "Maitreya" that closely resembled one of the offers given Jesus; I pointed this out to him, and the story suddenly disappeared (it was how the Maitreya came into a crowd in Nairobi from a great height, but just floated to the ground, and was worshiped by all who witnessed it).

[Steven Grant]

That's also close to the Promethean view of Satan (the god who sacrifices himself to bring divinity to humanity).

It's straight out if C.1 gnosticism...

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

You can take that as meaning God's against nakedness, or you can take that as a smidgen of forgiveness and compassion about the more inhospitable climate they're being ushered into.

- Grant

All I'm taking from it is that god likes to see people's bits, and gets really annoyed if you block his view!

[Lord Destiny]

Mmmm... not that I have any love for the Church, but that's something of an exaggeration. First of all, by "us," you mean Romanized Europe, and it wasn't the Church that "set us back" but Rome, by its inability to cohesively adapt to changing circumstances. Part of this, maybe much, can certainly be ascribed to the Christianization of Rome and the increasingly rigid social structure the Church encouraged, but the seeds were planted by the Empire itself, in some ways by the whole concept of the Empire, long before Christianity took root.

Along a line line of argument, had Rome survived there's not the slightest guarantee - and rather strong probability otherwise, I'd guess - that history would have proceeded along roughly parallel lines to an equal stage of development and its logical 2000 year extrapolation, only the Christianized Rome/Middle Ages bit snipped out...



That's because the Church is Pauline in its origins, not Jesuit. (Referring to Jesus and not to the Church Order, of course...)

- Grant

"Holy Mother Church" refers to the Catholic Church. Certainly by the time the word "catholic" was used it was distanced from its simple "Jesuit" origins. I'm talking about the Catholic monstrosity that dominated European thought for a thousand years.

The Church may have become imperial because of its Roman roots, but it was for religious reasons that it shut down any advancements of secular knowledge.

[Lord Destiny]

As far as Adam and Eve goes... had Adam and Eve reached the age of accountability?

Because if they had, doesn't that mean they already knew about good and evil?

And if they hadn't, then how can they be punished when they didn't know that eating the fruit was wrong? (Little kids know they are supposed to do what their parents say or get punished, but that's not the same as knowing right from wrong--otherwise the age of accountability would be around two years old..) Seems to me they disobeyed but did not understand the scope of the situation...since they'd never been punished for anything before.

And... when before that moment had either of them been lied to in any way?

How could Adam and Eve understand they were being deceived when they'd never experienced a "lie" before?

Also, how many animals talked in the Garden of Eden? Why was she so trusting? Was the snake known to her or was it a stranger? Did Adam and Eve even understand the concept of "stranger"?

[bartl]

As far as Adam and Eve goes... had Adam and Eve reached the age of accountability?

Because if they had, doesn't that mean they already knew about good and evil?

And if they hadn't, then how can they be punished when they didn't know that eating the fruit was wrong? (Little kids know they are supposed to do what their parents say or get punished, but that's not the same as knowing right from wrong--otherwise the age of accountability would be around two years old..) Seems to me they disobeyed but did not understand the scope of the situation...since they'd never been punished for anything before.

And... when before that moment had either of them been lied to in any way?

How could Adam and Eve understand they were being deceived when they'd never experienced a "lie" before?

Also, how many animals talked in the Garden of Eden? Why was she so trusting? Was the snake known to her or was it a stranger? Did Adam and Eve even understand the concept of "stranger"?
A) Adam and Eve were not punished, they were rewarded.
B) The Serpent was Promethean in nature; he sacrificed himself so that humanity could access their own divinity.
C) The Garden of Eden was a state of mind, not a place. Once humanity accepted sentience, they could not be in the Garden of Eden state of mind any more. Humanity gained the ability to overcome their instincts; for example, the ability to choose NOT to have sex if they did not like the potential consequences.

[Steven Grant]

The Church may have become imperial because of its Roman roots, but it was for religious reasons that it shut down any advancements of secular knowledge.

Yeah, that's the myth, mostly due to Galileo (and in reality Galileo was something of a doctrinaire prick who expected anything he said to be accepted no questions asked, and that's what got him into trouble more than his insistence on a heliocentric cosmology), but the church didn't shut down advancements of secular knowledge, and there were various little renaissances and enlightenments that pushed things forward from around 1200 AD on. Prior to that, it wasn't the Church that shut down learning and knowledge - the Church was largely responsible for preserving huge chunks of knowledge - it was simply the widespread poverty and hard living conditions of post-Roman Europe. Nobody was willing to underwrite science and learning, or couldn't, and that tradition was largely kept alive in monasteries, until the great medieval universities started arising. The only way the Church generally "shut down" secular knowledge is its insistence that if you wanted to propose something that ran contrary to Church "doctrine" (and, really, it wasn't until the early Enlightenment that the Church started viewing science and faith as enemies) they wanted you to demonstrate and prove why the system should be changed. Which is something Galileo took as a personal affront...

Now Giordano Bruno, he was a more interesting case than Galileo.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

As far as Adam and Eve goes... had Adam and Eve reached the age of accountability?

Because if they had, doesn't that mean they already knew about good and evil?[QUOTE]

Genesis doesn't specify what age they were during the Apple incident, but we can sort of assume no such thing as "age of accountability" existed before the Apple incident. And probably not before whenever they invented the bar mitzvah.

[QUOTE]And if they hadn't, then how can they be punished when they didn't know that eating the fruit was wrong? (Little kids know they are supposed to do what their parents say or get punished, but that's not the same as knowing right from wrong--otherwise the age of accountability would be around two years old..) Seems to me they disobeyed but did not understand the scope of the situation...since they'd never been punished for anything before.

But you answered your own question. They were told not to do one thing, but they went ahead and did it anyway. Or, as John Hiatt once put it, that's how you learn: you just get burned.

And... when before that moment had either of them been lied to in any way?

Looking at it another way, what besides that apple injunction hadn't been a lie?

How could Adam and Eve understand they were being deceived when they'd never experienced a "lie" before?

Not knowing you've experienced a lie isn't the same thing as not experiencing a lie. That's the reality of this nonsense: it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Question really is: why didn't God want them to have that knowledge? What was he hiding?

Also, how many animals talked in the Garden of Eden? Why was she so trusting? Was the snake known to her or was it a stranger? Did Adam and Eve even understand the concept of "stranger"?

Are you telling me that if an animal talked to you, you wouldn't trust it?

- Grant

[bartl]

Yeah, that's the myth, mostly due to Galileo (and in reality Galileo was something of a doctrinaire prick who expected anything he said to be accepted no questions asked, and that's what got him into trouble more than his insistence on a heliocentric cosmology),
Putting quotations from the Pope, his main defender, into the mouth of the foolish questioner in one of his books didn't help him much either.

[bartl]

Looking at it another way, what besides that apple injunction hadn't been a lie?
How was it a lie?
Question really is: why didn't God want them to have that knowledge? What was he hiding?
God DID want "Adam" and "Eve" to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. The only way they could grow was to find out that they had free will. Unless you're a Calvinist.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Question really is: why didn't God want them to have that knowledge? What was he hiding?

- Grant

I already said - he was enjoying having a perv, they ate the fruit and wised up, covered up the eye candy, and god got angry and kicked them out.

He was hiding that he was a Peeping Tom!

(Lost Girls has taught me that every child hood story is just about old people wanting to have sex with young people).

[Lord Destiny]

But you answered your own question.

My post was intended for the followers, not the non-followers. Like yourself, I already have my own beliefs of what the truth really is.

[bartl]

My post was intended for the followers, not the non-followers. Like yourself, I already have my own beliefs of what the truth really is.
Ah. Then I'm sorry I answered; I am an atheist, and consider the whole thing to be an allegory anyway.