WAR:And the Law of Return
Frenchy
Blair; however, everyone else has done the anti-war thing to death (no
tasteless pun intended, honestly) and I don't think there's anything I
could add that couldn't be summed up with "Ditto". So rather than jump on
the bandwagon, I'm going to post questions and concerns here that offer a
different and sometimes unpopular take on current events, particularly if
there's a Wiccan perspective.
Today's question:
Does the Law of Return apply to governments & societies? Regardless of
whether your definition is that whatever you do comes back to you equally,
or perhaps threefold (the Law of Three), does that apply to governments and
societies at large?
Some examples...
Are the English voters partly to blame for England's involvement in this
war? After all, they elected Tony Blair even if they might never have
guessed he'd drag them into an internationally unpopular war. That said,
do they share the responsibility for world feeling against them? Is this
the Law of Return coming back on former imperialists?
I can't say the same for George Bush since it's arguable that he was ever
honestly elected - or 'elected' at all. So...are the mass amount of
Americans who DIDN'T bother to turn out to vote partially responsible for
this idiot's foreign policy? Do Americans share the blame for this war by
not having properly voted someone in? Is this the Law of Return coming
back on former (and perhaps present) imperialists?
Is the new "Holy Crusade/Jihad" of the Islamic fundamentalists the Law of
Return coming back on Western civilization for the medieval Crusades et al?
Is the new Western imperialism being foisted on the Islamic world the Law
of Return coming back on people who also have a long and ugly history of
violent and imperialist aims?
Listening to the Islamic fundamentalists talk about spreading Islam
throughout all the world sound *exactly* like similar desires expressed by
the Christian Right to me. Is this the Law of Return coming back on
Christendom?
In short...are whole peoples responsible for the "sins of the fathers"?
Discuss. Explain. ;)
Frenchy
--
"When we fill our lifeboats in the post-apocalyptic meltdown, you will be
on the list. Maybe you should build yourself a bunker. I have a feeling you
could rebuild the world with Linux and a laptop...." - Archer, Toronto (The
night the attack on Iraq started)
Find the cure for the common religion! Deify Yourself at
http://www.tftb.com/deify
Childfree - It's A Choice! http://www.tftb.com/childfree
Public Enemy #1 for being half-French, one-quarter German & not enough
English to make up for either!
Gale
At this point I strongly recommend a book Bounder recommended a few
weeks back, _The Fourth Turning_. To simplify, distill, and deliberately
oversimplify the message -- once every 80 or 100 years we feel compelled
to turn our world upside down. Often this is a very nasty process -- the
sort of total war exemplified by the American Civil War and WWII. We may
be seeing a somewhat premature enactment of that world-shaking, as the
young ascendency of the Clinton-young Bush generation to power and the
triggering event imposed from outside (9-11) has the U.S. (and the West)
moving toward apocalypse early. (Note small "a" --> I'm not implying the
necessity of the large "A" variety.)
Regarding that outside impetus, I noted sometime over a year ago the
magical implications of the 3-fold pattern of destruction of the bin
Laden related fundamentalists --> the great stone Buddhas (world
guardians of Peace from another religion; the World Trade Center
(symbolizing the Western economic machine) and the Pentagon (symbolizing
Western military might). Yes, those people were, and are, trying to
begin World War III.
Where does this fit in with the Law of Return? Well, laws of Karma
(using the word in the Westernized sense in which I consistently use it)
are practical as well as Magickal. "You must live in the world you
create" is simple common sense as well as Karmic law. We reap (live in)
the world created by our ancestors (or ourselves in our past lives). I
tend to believe we generally are reborn among our own (own communities,
even own families). Thus we live, and live again, in the world we have
created.
And we, all Americans, are in a measure responsible for the Bush
administration. We created a culture in which it was possible for him to
take office, and we have created the culture that imagines the ugliest
and least responsible of his advisors are "experts."
As citizens of the West, are we responsible for the fact that our
ancestors were barbarians, the damnable and disgusting creatures that
sacked Constantinople and staged the Crusades against a (relatively)
civilized and tolerant society? Well, no, we are older than our
ancestors and presumably (don't count on this part) wiser. However (ugly
however) we still have to live with the reverberations of their actions
-- and the more immediate and stronger reverberations of the 19th.
Century European imperialist ventures, and the even stronger
reverberations of U.S. Cold War policies.
We are history, all of it, for we are part of an interlaced and
interweaved world. So yes, we pay, whether or not we are responsible.
--
Blessed Be,
Gale
original fiction, poetry, Tarot at
http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html
modstaff alt.religion.wicca.moderated: http://arwm.net
mist
>
> Does the Law of Return apply to governments & societies? Regardless of
> whether your definition is that whatever you do comes back to you equally,
> or perhaps threefold (the Law of Three), does that apply to governments and
> societies at large?
As "spirital karma", not really. Again the Nation only has a
group/consensus spirit, the effects of the people -hopefully- outweigh
the "rebounding" effect.
As for my own view of karma (aka work and effect,) seriously so. It
is in this vein that helped me form my current opinion on "Threefold
Return" and "Karma".
IMO the threefold relates in several (three?) ways. Physical,
intellectually and spiritually; past, future, present; personal,
relational, communal.
The first manifestation being that the society (country) must be in a
position to execute its choice of action - if that action is bad then
they are down, if given a higher choice they will be up, that is the
point of the choice and hence karma/3fold effect is slingshotted into
the puddle of world events.
These effects will have results - if a country is invaded, all other
things being neutral, the invaded country is mostly likely to be
unhappy.
This can rebound, by physical hostile action, now and over the future.
By intellectual restiction, in the degree of propoganda and
information control is required over both territories. By spiritual
degredation, as the invaders feel that their actions are worthy and
frees them to do repeat their actions, or do worse things to achieve
their wants. Personally this will affect the invaders by allowing
them to think that aggression is more acceptable, and can be used
effectively. This will flow into personal relationships becoming more
demanding & antagonistic; business relationships becoming harsher and
focusing less of benefits to all parties; communal relationships
becoming less trusting as aggressive advantage is a better option and
trust is overall reducing in a compounding manner (from the smaller
effects). Including continuing mistrust at international level.
The sad thing is that karma has momentum (hence not one for one
return), the energy slowly disapating over time and distance (and
other less concensus directions). Like the wave in the puddle, it is
most intense at the point of contact during the event, but a
resonating, repeated contact will create "enormous" waves.
> Some examples...
>
> Are the English voters partly to blame for England's involvement in this
> war? After all, they elected Tony Blair even if they might never have
> guessed he'd drag them into an internationally unpopular war. That said,
> do they share the responsibility for world feeling against them? Is this
> the Law of Return coming back on former imperialists?
English voters. no for the war. yes for getting a group of
"follow-me's" into parliment. yes for flow on effect from the world,
their "follow-me" government "followed-me" George Bush into this war.
I doubt this is the imperialism wave, but I could check if you're
really interested.
> I can't say the same for George Bush since it's arguable that he was ever
> honestly elected - or 'elected' at all. So...are the mass amount of
> Americans who DIDN'T bother to turn out to vote partially responsible for
> this idiot's foreign policy? Do Americans share the blame for this war by
> not having properly voted someone in? Is this the Law of Return coming
> back on former (and perhaps present) imperialists?
That GBush was or wasn't elected is a major point of 3fold, the
country wsa divided then, now they devided again - and so are many
other countries (except bloody Iran, Syria and Jordan...) For what a
foreign understands of the US Presidental election process, it
wouldn't matter if the whole country voted Gore*, the Electorial
College could still appoint Bush (at the risk of a public lynching.)
Thus the blame could only be from leaving this loophole open - after
all that is one way that a well protected position could be outside
controlled. Again I doubt this is imperialism returning (is
imperialism a bad thing?) more the price for allowing business people
and lawyers run the election system - the price being war for state
purposes (as opposed to stateD purposes)
> Is the new "Holy Crusade/Jihad" of the Islamic fundamentalists the Law of
> Return coming back on Western civilization for the medieval Crusades et al?
I think that might be a possiblity, the Westerners still haven't
gotten over being beaten 6-1 in the Crusades. Their is the possiblity
that the invaders are the Agent of execution in the 3fold effect on
the fundamentalists for keeping their head in the sand about religion,
technology and person rights for the last thousand years. Only
recently has "the West" surpassed the nations that the Coalition
forces are invading. At the time of the Crusades "Arabia" and the
dying reminants of the Roman Empire were majorly ahead on all of these
fronts. They even gave us nothing (aka zero)!
> Is the new Western imperialism being foisted on the Islamic world the Law
> of Return coming back on people who also have a long and ugly history of
> violent and imperialist aims?
No. But then Coyote is active in their area. Gods help them.
> Listening to the Islamic fundamentalists talk about spreading Islam
> throughout all the world sound *exactly* like similar desires expressed by
> the Christian Right to me. Is this the Law of Return coming back on
> Christendom?
Nope. Its hate coming back on hate. Their closed mindset creates an
enemy, this is not the return, or the rebound of magic ---this *IS*
their spell---.
They are calling their Satan, their enemy to themselves, together.
Can't you feel it?
> In short...are whole peoples responsible for the "sins of the fathers"?
I believe I stated that a son is responsible for the sin of his
father, unless he repent and atone for that sin. Futher more I held
that unless he repent in full, then he is more than likely to repeat
that sin than repent.
(Was it Baird that I discussed this with last time? comments? :)
Jackdaw
"mist" <mist...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f03249e.03040...@posting.google.com...
> Frenchy <fre...@spam-me-not.com> wrote
SNIP
> I believe I stated that a son is responsible for the sin of his
> father, unless he repent and atone for that sin. Futher more I held
> that unless he repent in full, then he is more than likely to repeat
> that sin than repent.
> (Was it Baird that I discussed this with last time? comments? :)
>
Sin? Repent! Atone for something I didn't do.
I am not responsible for any "sin" of my father!
Bugger atoning!!!!
I will learn from the mistakes of others and my own.
Sounds like a classic case of foisting guilt onto someone else.
Scapegoat mentality / Christian dogma!
--
Jackdaw ( UK )
Pagan.
francis freespirit
<fre...@spam-me-not.com> writes
>In short...are whole peoples responsible for the "sins of the fathers"?
>
>Discuss. Explain. ;)
An interesting proposition.
1. Bush'n'Blair
It's my conclusion that people get the kind of leaders they deserve.
This applies at national as well as subsidiary levels. So, yes, our lot
deserves our Tony and your lot deserves your George. Nothing to do with
Karma or the Law(s) of Return. Just that if people can't be bothered to
vote at elections, they are not entitled to whinge when things go wrong.
Australia is different. Everyone has to vote for every candidate or pay
a fine in default. It's called proportional representation of the single
transferable vote variety. Makes every candidate feel good to know
everyone voted for them. Produces some unfortunate results from time to
time and the old hands know how to manipulate the system so they get the
biggest cut of the cake. It's called democracy (sic).
2. Islam and the Crusades
Christianity has larger lost its virility. (pace GWB and the born
again.) Islam still retains its vigour. Over here we're beginning to
adjust to the Moslem parts of our community being more militant than the
Christians. It's a younger religion after all and it still retains a
desire to convert the infidel. Some Evangelical Christian ministers are
aware of this and frightened in consequence. But I guess they're on a
losing wicket. They believe in their Literalist interpretation of the
Scriptures but nothing short of emotional blackmail can convince the
outside world.
No, I don't go along with the idea of the present unfortunate conflict
as anything to do with the Law of Return .. but I am prepared to accept
our (UK's) subjection to American (USA's) cultural imperialism as a
payback for our sins of the past when we were the Imperialists doing
damage in all parts of the world in our misguided belief of the need to
covert everyone else to the values of the Victorian English Gentleman. o
me miserum. mea culpa. nunc et in hora mortis examine .. ..
--
Francis
Shez
<mist...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>I believe I stated that a son is responsible for the sin of his
>father, unless he repent and atone for that sin. Futher more I held
>that unless he repent in full, then he is more than likely to repeat
>that sin than repent.
>(Was it Baird that I discussed this with last time? comments? :)
>
I cant believe that, simply because it would punish an innocent for the
sins of his father, or how ever many great grandfathers,
I prefer to believe that each of us walks our own path, and makes our
own choices,
To punish someone for sins they didn't commit would be to my mind at
least an injustice, Though I am well aware that the universe is not
fair, paying for someone else's sin, would not help anyone to grow,
especially if they have no idea that such a sin has been committed,
Its like kicking every dog you meet, because one dog bit you...
Karma in its original form is not a punishment system its actually a
reward system, those who believe in reincarnation, believe that next
life around will be an improvement on this life.
Karma itself is more like Fate than the punishment system that the
western understanding of Karma has produced.
When will we stop foisting this idea of punishment on to everyone, its a
very typical Christian mindset, that punishment, and hell are hovering
forever over our heads.
--
Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
Cricket
"Shez" <sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VapL3hBn...@oldcity.demon.co.uk...
I've always thought that the original was more reportage than religion - ie,
that if you really fouled up your family's standing in the community, the
fertility of your fields, the bloodlines of your oxen, or whatever; it *would*
come back and smack your sons and their sons. Because, in a tribal,
agricultural society, it will. Somewhere along the line it got transformed
from a warning to a requirment - from "this is more than likely what will
happen" to "this is what God requires to happen". After all, if it's a
natural law that fouling your own nest is going to cause problems that will
hang around for a while, there's no one to blame but the original foul-er.
But if Goddidit, even though technically its still the original screwups
fault, there enters another to take the blame, someone to shake your fist at
if Grandpa is long gone as a result of his sins. Also it's a way to say that
the neighbor's horrible bad luck is someone's fault, so the same sort of thing
couldn't befall you out of sheer bad luck.
OIMBFOS (translating to or I may be full of shit) ;>)
> --
> Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
>
Wood Avens
On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:31:41 CST, Frenchy <fre...@spam-me-not.com>
wrote:
>Today's question:
>
>Does the Law of Return apply to governments & societies? Regardless of
>whether your definition is that whatever you do comes back to you equally,
>or perhaps threefold (the Law of Three), does that apply to governments and
>societies at large?
>
>Some examples...
>
>Are the English voters partly to blame for England's involvement in this
>war? After all, they elected Tony Blair even if they might never have
>guessed he'd drag them into an internationally unpopular war. That said,
>do they share the responsibility for world feeling against them? Is this
>the Law of Return coming back on former imperialists?
Ouch, Frenchy! (I do like these posts that require me to Think,
rather than simply react.)
I'm not sure that the Law of Return isn't a bit of a red herring in
relation to what I see as the central issue of responsibility. Maybe
I'll come back to that.
Personal, individual responsibility ... collective responsibility.
It's relatively easy, it seems to me, to observe the things I'm
personally, directly responsible for. I'm directly responsible for
breaking the milk-jug, because I dropped it. But ... you might have
indirect responsibility, if you'd come in and said "BOO!" just as I
was taking the jug out of the fridge. And my friend, who'd put you up
to it. And his kids, who'd teased him mercilesslly all day till he
badly needed to tease someone himself. And the TV cartoon the kids
were watching that morning ...
The thing is, it seems to me there are always multiple causes for any
event, and enormous uncertaintly about whether, or when, or how,
anyone can intervene to produce different outcomes. So,
paradoxically, I think two apparently-incompatible things are both
true:
a) All I can do is to consider all the options available to me in the
light of the available evidence (which may well be incomplete or
misleading) and then do what seems to me to be the best (or sometimes
the least bad) thing in any given situation.
b) We are all, whether we like it or not, parts of an interconnected
web of humanity (indeed, arguably of all life), and so share the
collective responsibility for everything which humanity does.
And we have to dance somewhere between the two. It's no good my
saying "It's nothing to do with me, it's Tony Blair's fault". Equally
there's no sense in making myself sick because I failed to stop him.
My personal responsibility both as an individual and as part of the
human collective is to make sure I do whatever is appropriate for me
(ie the things in a) above).
Francis and Cricket are right, though - even if I personally did all I
humanly could, sometimes there are disasters which have simple
cause-and-effect type consequences which will rebound on me. Call
that the Law of Return - it's not necessary to stipulate a
supernatural agency to see that one person's, or one group's,
ill-advised policy could affect a whole lot of other people for
generations, even if the original decision was taken with the best of
intentions.
But if I'm on the receiving end of that, I don't think my job is to
say "Ah, alas, it's the karmic burden of my people" - my
responsibility is to do what I can within those particular
circumstances. In other words, it doesn't matter whose fault it was,
or why it happened, except insofar as it might help me to avoid the
same mistake. I'm not responsible for what my ancestors did; what I'm
responsible for is what I do with the situation they've left me in.
bb
Wood Avens
spamtrap: remove number to reply
..
Tiliqua
francis freespirit vouchsafed that:
>In message <bPIja.99307$Zo.19927@sccrnsc03>, Frenchy
><fre...@spam-me-not.com> writes
>>In short...are whole peoples responsible for the "sins of the fathers"?
>>
>>Discuss. Explain. ;)
>
>An interesting proposition.
>
>1. Bush'n'Blair
>
>It's my conclusion that people get the kind of leaders they deserve.
>This applies at national as well as subsidiary levels. So, yes, our lot
>deserves our Tony and your lot deserves your George. Nothing to do with
>Karma or the Law(s) of Return. Just that if people can't be bothered to
>vote at elections, they are not entitled to whinge when things go wrong.
>
>Australia is different. Everyone has to vote for every candidate or pay
>a fine in default.
Ummm.....only for one candidate really. And then only in one's own
electorate. One MAY choose to exercise a "null" preference by
"spoiling the ballot paper" (scrawling political obscenities is good)
and making one's vot void or one MAY choose to extend ones preferences
by numbering candidates in a preferred order. There's quite a complex
mathematical formul;a which determines when that descending preference
expires, but that really can't be manipulated by the candidates' (note
the possessive plural!) representatives. In the Upper House of NSW
(The Legislative Council) we recently had about fifty candidates in
(about) twenty party groupings. Only the first fifteen of one's
preferences would be counted.
Of course, one can CHOOSE to surrender one's choices to the party
machines and just vote for the party (above the line) at which time
they'll rub their hands together and say "thank you very much, fool"
and proceed to manipulate as hard as they can go, but if you exercise
your choice and pick your own set of preferences, then there's nothing
(legal) they can do about it.
In short, all you really have to do to avoid the fine (nominal really,
it's just the hassle of explaining in quadruplicate) is to show up at
the booth, identify yourself on the rolls, assert that you haven't
voted anywhere else on that day, and accept the ballot paper. You can
wipe your ear with it after that, it's a fair political statement, but
after the trouble to show up, you may as well express your opinion,
unless you don't have one.
> It's called proportional representation of the single
>transferable vote variety. Makes every candidate feel good to know
>everyone voted for them. Produces some unfortunate results from time to
>time and the old hands know how to manipulate the system so they get the
>biggest cut of the cake. It's called democracy (sic).
>
May the Lord and The Lady prosper your ventures
Yowie
news:87519vs0ll09aka00...@4ax.com...
But we do have the traditional political plays of gerrymandering (moving
election boundaries around so that its not "exactly" proportional, and
giving your party a better bet of being inthe majority in either of the
houses) and branch stacking (infiltrate the particular branch with your
faction, so that you get your faction's candidate as the party
representative on the ballot sheet) which somewhat interferes with the idea
of "proportional representation".
And of course then there is the great Australian pastime of rorting the
system. "Rort" being a uniquely Australian word meaning "ripping off" or
less colloquially "a dishonest or fraudulent act or practice" and generally
involves Big Name Politicians and other People With Power And Influence
being discovered with far too many fingers in the pie.
Yowie
francis freespirit
<full...@bigFROGpond.com.au> writes
<Francis>
>>Australia is different. Everyone has to vote for every candidate or pay
>>a fine in default.
>
<Tiliqua>
>Ummm.....only for one candidate really. And then only in one's own
>electorate. One MAY choose to exercise a "null" preference by "spoiling
>the ballot paper" (scrawling political obscenities is good) and making
>one's vot void or one MAY choose to extend ones preferences by
>numbering candidates in a preferred order. There's quite a complex
>mathematical formul;a which determines when that descending preference
>expires, but that really can't be manipulated by the candidates' (note
>the possessive plural!) representatives. In the Upper House of NSW (The
>Legislative Council) we recently had about fifty candidates in (about)
>twenty party groupings. Only the first fifteen of one's preferences
>would be counted.
Thank you for bringing me up to date. I was in NSW in the 70s when there
were 50 or more candidates and we were expected to vote for all of them
in 'preferential' order. Manipulators, including one reverend gentleman,
issued their supporters with 'how to vote' cards. The 'donkeys' simply
put a number 1 against the candidate at the top of the list, 2 on the
next one down, and so on until they reached the bottom of the barrel
(sorry, bottom of the list) .. .. :))
--
Francis
francis freespirit
<woodav...@gmx.co.uk> writes
>b) We are all, whether we like it or not, parts of an interconnected
>web of humanity (indeed, arguably of all life), and so share the
>collective responsibility for everything which humanity does.
Would Durkheim have gone quite so far as this ? .. .. :))
--
Francis
Wendy of NJ
Frenchy wrote:
> For the record, I am against the war and totally unsupportive of Bush &
> Blair; however, everyone else has done the anti-war thing to death (no
> tasteless pun intended, honestly) and I don't think there's anything I
> could add that couldn't be summed up with "Ditto". So rather than jump on
> the bandwagon, I'm going to post questions and concerns here that offer a
> different and sometimes unpopular take on current events, particularly if
> there's a Wiccan perspective.
>
> Today's question:
>
> Does the Law of Return apply to governments & societies? Regardless of
> whether your definition is that whatever you do comes back to you equally,
> or perhaps threefold (the Law of Three), does that apply to governments and
> societies at large?
I don't think so, and here are my reasons:
I think the Law of Returns applies to individuals. Nations, as far as
their run by individuals aren't what you'd call "exempt" but, neither
are they "getting what they deserve" - personally, I think the nations
in question are operating under the "eye for an eye" rule rather than
the Law of Returns. And that brings up a corrolary question:
does the Law of Returns apply to everyone/everything in the Universe, or
only to those who *believe* in it?
You could make an argument for "aggregate" return (summing up the 3-fold
return for everyone in a population, in some weird statistical fashion)
that may yeild a "return value" for a large population, but my
statistics isn't that good to be able to calculate a nation's karma
>
> Some examples...
>
> Are the English voters partly to blame for England's involvement in this
> war? After all, they elected Tony Blair even if they might never have
> guessed he'd drag them into an internationally unpopular war. That said,
> do they share the responsibility for world feeling against them? Is this
> the Law of Return coming back on former imperialists?
>
> I can't say the same for George Bush since it's arguable that he was ever
> honestly elected - or 'elected' at all. So...are the mass amount of
> Americans who DIDN'T bother to turn out to vote partially responsible for
> this idiot's foreign policy? Do Americans share the blame for this war by
> not having properly voted someone in? Is this the Law of Return coming
> back on former (and perhaps present) imperialists?
>
> Is the new "Holy Crusade/Jihad" of the Islamic fundamentalists the Law of
> Return coming back on Western civilization for the medieval Crusades et al?
>
> Is the new Western imperialism being foisted on the Islamic world the Law
> of Return coming back on people who also have a long and ugly history of
> violent and imperialist aims?
>
> Listening to the Islamic fundamentalists talk about spreading Islam
> throughout all the world sound *exactly* like similar desires expressed by
> the Christian Right to me. Is this the Law of Return coming back on
> Christendom?
>
> In short...are whole peoples responsible for the "sins of the fathers"?
Gods, I hope not. Although, if reincarnation is a valid thing, there may
be past life stuff to be worked off.
And maybe this is Homo Sapien's return for wiping out the Neandertals.
How far back do you want to go?
Good topic, BTW.
-Wendy of NJ
>
> Discuss. Explain. ;)
>
> Frenchy
francis freespirit
<voxw...@hotmail.com> writes
>And maybe this is Homo Sapien's return for wiping out the Neandertals.
>How far back do you want to go?
.. at least as far as Lucy .. :))
--
Francis
Jackdaw
"francis freespirit" <fra...@topdeck.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CveSSoBz...@topdeck.demon.co.uk...
Cute!!
--
Jackdaw ( UK )
collector of facts, trivia and bright twinkly things!
Gale
I'd go at least as far as some little furry guy running about eating
dinosaur eggs.
Tiliqua
Well, since the Electoral Commisson and the Electoral Boundaries
(body) came into effect (early 80s I think?) and the decisions about
boundaries were taken OUT of the pollies' hands, I haven't been nearly
so concerned about that. We no longer have "dumbell" shaped
electorates to exclude or include urban voting patterns, for example.
(minor snip, no context lost)
>and branch stacking (infiltrate the particular branch with your
>faction, so that you get your faction's candidate as the party
>representative on the ballot sheet) which somewhat interferes with the idea
>of "proportional representation".
Yes, I agree but branch stacking is an internal party problem, not one
that affects the electoral process directly. The only way that any of
us can change THAT practice is to join "The Party" and become a
power-broker thereby accepting the characteristics of the despicable
and blighting one's own life. I just can't face that choice.
>
>And of course then there is the great Australian pastime of rorting the
>system. "Rort" being a uniquely Australian word meaning "ripping off" or
>less colloquially "a dishonest or fraudulent act or practice" and generally
>involves Big Name Politicians and other People With Power And Influence
>being discovered with far too many fingers in the pie.
But catering to, or balancing, conflicting interest groups is what
politics is all about. We haven't had a really good rort since Senator
Mal Campbell (who is still alive and well and living in Queensland)
>
>Yowie
Tiliqua
francis freespirit vouchsafed that:
>In message <87519vs0ll09aka00...@4ax.com>, Tiliqua
The donkey vote is still with us and will ever be.
There have been lots of electoral changes since the 70s, we now have
"micro-parties" and ballot papers for the Upper House which have had
as many as 70 candidates and were likened to a tablecloth. The bona
fides of small political parties are now more thoroughly examined
before they can be registered (since about 20 of them were found to be
fronts for the Liberals) but we still have the delight of Fa$t Buck$
(an anti-development candidate who changed his name by deed poll about
20 years ago - up around Nimbin, I think.) and the Shooters Party, and
in Canberra the Sun-Dried Green Tomato Party (which was an
anti-politcs party) and the Party Party Party Party (which was in it
for a good time).
As I mentioned in my post to Yowie (one of 'em anyway) the politicians
no longer set the electoral boundaries, you can surrender your
preferences by voting above the line for a straight "party ticket" of
the party of your choice (very easy, just tick ONE box, not fifteen)
and the party faithful and the unthinking uneducated do this a lot.
The electoral system is much cleaner than it was.
We're due for a good scandal, though. Malcolm Fraser was found without
his trousers in a motel in the USA in the late 70s, a former PM Billy
Snedden died "on the nest" with a paid companion (after he left
office, that is) but everybody's so damn tolerant these days a sexual
peccadillo just won't stir up the public as it would in the UK. Of
course your reptiles of the press are slimier than ours so that may be
why.
You may remember Fred Nile (the Rev Fred) of the "Christian Democrats"
party, once the "Call to Australia" and before that the "Family
Action Movement" who is a fundy. But he just lost his way, really
after his wife left the party and is more a figure of fun than a
serious threat to society.
He had his last big moment of glory a couple of years ago when the Gay
Mardi Gras parade featured a ten-foot paper mache "Head of Fred" being
carried on a silver salver (a la John the Baptist) at the head (ahem)
of the parade. Even then he just didn't capture the fine sense of
genuine outrage he used to drum up, no froth at the corners of the
mouth, no incoherent stuttering.
Ah well, the glory days are past us, now.
In The Darkness
path has light to be shown to the un-enlightened...
...
Including, in the case of Xians,
most of its followers, unfortunately....
Jackdaw wrote:
> "mist" <mist...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6f03249e.03040...@posting.google.com...
>>Frenchy <fre...@spam-me-not.com> wrote
> SNIP
<Bloody well Ditto>
>
>>I believe I stated that a son is responsible for the sin of his
>>father, unless he repent and atone for that sin. Futher more I held
>>that unless he repent in full, then he is more than likely to repeat
>>that sin than repent.
>>(Was it Baird that I discussed this with last time? comments? :)
>>
>
>
> Sin?
Original Definition before the great Xian loss of Wisdom:
SIN = Transgression.
Transgression was defined as "actions outside Torah"
Torah (more commonly thought of as old testament)
translates to "instructions"
So, to "Sin" was to take "actions outside of the instructions".
Sort of like ignoring your doctors advice.
Sin = Eating Pork.
Ever eat Pork without cooking it adequately ?
> Repent!
Cook the stuff thoroughly!
>Atone for something I didn't do.
Well, your Dad lived his life, and you inherited his Gene's.
Perhaps, later in Life you will have a hard time keeping weight off...
or a propensity towards Diabetes.... you will have to atone for his
selections and his ancestors, as well as yours.....
> I am not responsible for any "sin" of my father!
Well, he chose his wife, and she had lived a certain kind of life..
and her ancestors.. and he his... you got all the things
he and she could pass on....for better or worse.
Or, did you think ancient Sheep herders were oblivious to genetics ?
Of course, some of the worse interpretations of Christianity are by
Christians.... Someone crucified their High Priest,
a lot appears to have been lost....
> Bugger atoning!!!!
The act of Buggering has it's own problems, and counts itself among
"sins" .... of course, there wasn't a "colostomy bag" back in those days,
and the sphincter isn't all it's cracked up to be.... ;)
Many Gay men who utilize that practice, often finish life with one
of those bags.... so, Sin has Consequences.. eh ?
> I will learn from the mistakes of others and my own.
Sure, never said you wouldn't.
> Sounds like a classic case of foisting guilt onto someone else.
Oh, the Xian crowd love guilt. At one point, it appears they
substituted "Hellfire and Brimstone" for the simple concept that
they risked "G-ds judgment", if the "Transgressed".
G-ds judgment, for example, was the Colostomy Bag.
Or Trichinosis, in the case of the Pork.
In what must have been an attempt to convince
followers to practice the basics it appears
that they either invented, or escalated the concept of hell...
This made for a better blend with the Greek view of things (Gehenna).
The "Sheol" of ancient times was an actual crevasse... with stairs down
it's side.
> Scapegoat mentality / Christian dogma!
Ahh... Well, the spell of the "ScapeGoat" probably had more to
it, than meets the eye, as well...
But, later.
Frenchy
The 1950s? ;)
Wendy of NJ
That is something known in modern times, but not necessarily in biblical
times. My research indicates that the pork restrictions had to do more
with the idea that pigs are very difficult to "herd" and thus pay as
taxes. Some of the Kosher dietary restrictions may have derived more
from political situations rather than medical.
>
> > Repent!
>
> Cook the stuff thoroughly!
>
> >Atone for something I didn't do.
>
> Well, your Dad lived his life, and you inherited his Gene's.
>
> Perhaps, later in Life you will have a hard time keeping weight off...
> or a propensity towards Diabetes.... you will have to atone for his
> selections and his ancestors, as well as yours.....
>
>> I am not responsible for any "sin" of my father!
>
>
> Well, he chose his wife, and she had lived a certain kind of life..
> and her ancestors.. and he his... you got all the things
> he and she could pass on....for better or worse.
>
> Or, did you think ancient Sheep herders were oblivious to genetics ?
apparently not, since incest is also listed as a sinful activity
according to Deuteronomy. (among many, many other things) However, while
one may suffer the consequenses of our genetic make-up, there is a bit
of randomness thrown in - whose chromosomes for a particular trait are
you going to inherit? And which ones of these will be expressed?
Just because the sheep herders may have figured out about breeding and
rudimentary genetics with their flocks, doesn't mean they made the leap
to think that these rules applied to *them* - after all, Man was created
in God's image, in their way of thinking, and was "above" (better/Lord
of All he surveys type of thing) such nonsense.
And I don't think "oblivious" is really the correct work. Perhaps you
mean to say "exempt"? Oblivious implies that they had the knowledge (or
the knowledge was known) and they are unaware of it through ignorance or
stupidity. Exempt implies that they didn't think these rules apply to them.
>
> Of course, some of the worse interpretations of Christianity are by
> Christians.... Someone crucified their High Priest,
> a lot appears to have been lost....
>
<snip>
>
>> Sounds like a classic case of foisting guilt onto someone else.
>
>
> Oh, the Xian crowd love guilt.
And here I was thinking that the guilt market was cornered by the Jews.
(although I have yet to see a better practicioner than my mother... My
husband notes that I've learned at the feet of the Master.)
-Wendy of NJ
Frenchy
> The thing is, it seems to me there are always multiple causes for any
> event, and enormous uncertaintly about whether, or when, or how,
> anyone can intervene to produce different outcomes. So,
> paradoxically, I think two apparently-incompatible things are both
> true:
>
> a) All I can do is to consider all the options available to me in the
> light of the available evidence (which may well be incomplete or
> misleading) and then do what seems to me to be the best (or sometimes
> the least bad) thing in any given situation.
>
> b) We are all, whether we like it or not, parts of an interconnected
> web of humanity (indeed, arguably of all life), and so share the
> collective responsibility for everything which humanity does.
That's kind of what I'm getting at. Right after the debacle known as the
U.S. 2000 (S)Election a lot of fingers were pointed at who was to blame for
things working out as muddled as they did. I thought about it and realized
there were a LOT of reasons why it all turned into a big mess, but realized
in the end I really blamed all the voters who *didn't* turn out and perhaps
help us decide this election one way or the other.
So...listening to CNN & the BBC at work, it just got me to thinking about
how this war affects everyone whether they had anything to do with it or
not. As a non-war-supporting American I am faced with the eternal
hostility of the rest of the world for something I would have stopped if I
could and never started had it been in my power. And I figure Brits must
be pretty nicked at Blair for putting them in the position of being the
supporters of the hated Americans, in an unpopular war that will likely
draw new attention to them from the terrorists. But I also wondered about
the decent Moslems whose religion has been dragged into the crapper by
terrorists, and the angry letter in the paper the other day by a Muslim
woman somewhere in Hartford who was verbally abused by people in a
supermarket checkout line who just *assumed* she must sympathize with
terrorists because she wears a hijab. Muslims are marked people in America
now, whose lives have been turned upside down not only by American paranoia
but by the religious extremism that made America paranoid in the first
place.
It all just seems so deja vu sometimes though...the radical Islamists have
turned this into a religious crusade even though Bush never meant to
(although his rhetoric since the war began would certainly belie this - I'm
actually thinking closer to 9/11) and I have read that the Muslims resent
the fact that *they* used to be the flower of civilization and Christendom
was the domain of filthy, ignorant barbarians - now the tables seem to have
been turned.
> And we have to dance somewhere between the two. It's no good my
> saying "It's nothing to do with me, it's Tony Blair's fault". Equally
> there's no sense in making myself sick because I failed to stop him.
> My personal responsibility both as an individual and as part of the
> human collective is to make sure I do whatever is appropriate for me
> (ie the things in a) above).
Still, people *do* suffer for the sins of others.
> Francis and Cricket are right, though - even if I personally did all I
> humanly could, sometimes there are disasters which have simple
> cause-and-effect type consequences which will rebound on me. Call
> that the Law of Return - it's not necessary to stipulate a
> supernatural agency to see that one person's, or one group's,
> ill-advised policy could affect a whole lot of other people for
> generations, even if the original decision was taken with the best of
> intentions.
>
> But if I'm on the receiving end of that, I don't think my job is to
> say "Ah, alas, it's the karmic burden of my people" - my
> responsibility is to do what I can within those particular
> circumstances. In other words, it doesn't matter whose fault it was,
> or why it happened, except insofar as it might help me to avoid the
> same mistake. I'm not responsible for what my ancestors did; what I'm
> responsible for is what I do with the situation they've left me in.
"Karmic burden" IMO is just an excuse to not take responsibility for your
actions - like the caste society of Hindus...the former one anyway...in
which you left untouchables to their filth and destitute lives because they
"must have done something in a former lifetime to deserve that". Maybe so,
but you can't know that for sure, so IMO you're bound, as a decent human
being, to help that person if you can.
Frenchy
> Frenchy <fre...@spam-me-not.com> wrote
>
>> Listening to the Islamic fundamentalists talk about spreading Islam
>> throughout all the world sound *exactly* like similar desires expressed
>> by
>> the Christian Right to me. Is this the Law of Return coming back on
>> Christendom?
>
> Nope. Its hate coming back on hate. Their closed mindset creates an
> enemy, this is not the return, or the rebound of magic ---this *IS*
> their spell---.
> They are calling their Satan, their enemy to themselves, together.
> Can't you feel it?
Now that is a VERY interesting idea, Mist...I had never thought of it that
way, but you're right! Perhaps the Christian Right IS drawing this to
itself by getting back what it puts out. Does that mean that people who
don't necessarily believe in the Law of Return/Threefold Law may
necessarily be subject to it nevertheless? ;)
(Which someone else mentioned somewhere else in this thread)
Frenchy
> Frenchy <fre...@spam-me-not.com> wrote
Is this the Law of Return coming
>> back on former (and perhaps present) imperialists?
>
> That GBush was or wasn't elected is a major point of 3fold, the
> country wsa divided then, now they devided again - and so are many
> other countries (except bloody Iran, Syria and Jordan...) For what a
> foreign understands of the US Presidental election process, it
> wouldn't matter if the whole country voted Gore*, the Electorial
> College could still appoint Bush (at the risk of a public lynching.)
> Thus the blame could only be from leaving this loophole open - after
> all that is one way that a well protected position could be outside
> controlled. Again I doubt this is imperialism returning (is
> imperialism a bad thing?) more the price for allowing business people
> and lawyers run the election system - the price being war for state
> purposes (as opposed to stateD purposes)
Now THERE'S an interesting idea, and the subject of some politically
incorrect emails I've had with another arwm member from time to time...Is
imperialism always a bad thing? Or, can there be positive effects on a
conquered society through imperialism?
As Pagans/Wiccans/people of the earth, we are very sensitive (or try to be
anyway) about other peoples' cultures. We have discussed the New Age
appropriation, or misappropriation as some might say, of a conquered and
abused peoples' religion, particularly for financial gain. We have also
heard from a self-described Maori who came in here some months back flaming
like a burning Bush over historic abuses of the Maori people in New Zealand
by European colonialists. We have gone over the litany of abuses of native
people by the governments of America and England, probably because those
two groups make up the two largest ethnic slices of arwm.
But are the fruits of conquest necessarily always in the worst interests of
the conquered people? What if the conquerors put an end to practices that
are largely regarded as barbaric? How much "cultural sensitivity", for
example, did the British government show for the ancient Indian practice of
"suttee", or a wife throwing herself on her husband's funeral pyre, when
they outlawed the practice in the early 1800s? Are the Indians better off
or worse off because of this "imperialist" encroachment on their cultural
traditions?
In most Western countries, AFAIK, the ingrained Muslim/African practice of
"female circumcision", perhaps more appropriately called "Female genital
mutilation", or FMG, is prohibited by law. Are we being culturally
insensitive by not allowing these immigrants to practice something they
believe makes a young girl or a baby a good Muslim? Are we wrong to go
into these peoples' countries (as many of our missionaries, social
activists et al do) and try to encourage people to not engage in this
practice anymore?
The U.S. has a long tradition of capital punishment, which is now largely
regarded by the West as barbaric and inhumane (indeed, I think we're the
only Western country left in which it's practiced, if I'm not mistaken.)
Aren't countries who criticize us for this simply not showing cultural
sensitivity to our method of handling crime? After all, it's not as though
we've got the most severe punishment methods imaginable - Amnesty
INternational lists far harsher governments in the world.
And finally, cultural imperialism - the import of one's culture to foreign
countries, which has been called the "McDonaldization" of the world, mostly
because it refers to American cultural imports - aren't the consumers
really to blame for this? If most French people didn't like McDonald's in
their country, would so many of them eat there so much that they now face
the same obesity problem we do? A Canadian friend of mine has complained
about all the American imports, to the detriment of the purchase of
Canadian-produced goods, but I asked *him* - well, who's buying all these
American imports? Canadians, n'est-ce pas? Why don't you support your own
manufacturers by buying Canadian?
Thoughts to ponder...;)
Frenchy
Doing my level best to keep the ng from getting too shallow or off-topic,
even when the subject is a seemingly off-topic war...;)
Alan Young
<fre...@spam-me-not.com> wrote:
> But are the fruits of conquest necessarily always in the worst interests of
> the conquered people? What if the conquerors put an end to practices that
> are largely regarded as barbaric?
> The U.S. has a long tradition of capital punishment, which is now largely
> regarded by the West as barbaric and inhumane (indeed, I think we're the
> only Western country left in which it's practiced, if I'm not mistaken.)
You've hit the nail on the head, Frenchy! With any sort of luck, a more
civilized country should come and conquer the U.S., put an end to our
barbaric quasi-civilization, and drag us kicking and screaming into the
enlightened 21st century,
And we'll all line up on the streets to throw flowers at the conquering
troops, while we make bonfires of Eminem CDs.
So, what enlightened empire is going to come liberate us?
--
Hummingbear
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/
I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...
---Monk's Dream
Cricket
"Frenchy" <fre...@spam-me-not.com> wrote in message
news:H0qka.360681$L1.103646@sccrnsc02...
Well, this is just weird. I swear this afternoon I had almost this exact same
conversation with myself on the topic of imperialism (maybe a reaction to all
that Kipling? And I don't talk to myself, of course not. Must have been a
meditation.) . Can't say as I came to any real satisfactory conclusion,
except to be glad that you just had to do all the typing I would have had to
do if you hadn't posted this. But really, something to be pondered, glad I
wasn't the only one who thought so. (It's the Kipling, I tell you...)
In The Darkness
Oh ? They knew all too well in Biblical times... People were
actively getting sick... but, did they know the cause ?
Well, as they always said
"You cannot know all the reasons for Torah!"
Empirical data is exactly that, strictly empirical.
> > Repent!
>>
>> Cook the stuff thoroughly!
>>
>> >Atone for something I didn't do.
>>
>> Well, your Dad lived his life, and you inherited his Gene's.
>>
>> Perhaps, later in Life you will have a hard time keeping weight
>> off...
>> or a propensity towards Diabetes.... you will have to atone for his
>> selections and his ancestors, as well as yours.....
>>
>>> I am not responsible for any "sin" of my father!
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, he chose his wife, and she had lived a certain kind of life..
>> and her ancestors.. and he his... you got all the things
>> he and she could pass on....for better or worse.
>>
>> Or, did you think ancient Sheep herders were oblivious to genetics ?
>
>
> apparently not, since incest is also listed as a sinful activity
> according to Deuteronomy. (among many, many other things) However, while
> one may suffer the consequenses of our genetic make-up, there is a bit
> of randomness thrown in - whose chromosomes for a particular trait are
> you going to inherit? And which ones of these will be expressed?
>
> Just because the sheep herders may have figured out about breeding and
> rudimentary genetics with their flocks, doesn't mean they made the leap
> to think that these rules applied to *them* - after all, Man was created
> in God's image, in their way of thinking, and was "above" (better/Lord
> of All he surveys type of thing) such nonsense.
A child is "guilty of his fathers sins, unto the -seventh= generation."
I might accept this view, if it wasn't for the Generation comment.
Never confuse the belief of the Masses with that of the High Priests,
and do NOT assume the High priests taught the Masses.
After all, there were three levels of Initiation in Qumran.
But read on, before refuting...
> And I don't think "oblivious" is really the correct work. Perhaps you
> mean to say "exempt"? Oblivious implies that they had the knowledge (or
> the knowledge was known) and they are unaware of it through ignorance or
> stupidity. Exempt implies that they didn't think these rules apply to them.
Perhaps, perhaps not, as the Ancient Children of Israel practiced
very strict breeding habits. Hence certain rules, such that a child
of a Jewish woman was automatically Jewish... but, not of a Jewish Man..
Certainly, we understand the specialness of the Kohen... but,
what about a Mamzer ? Imbedded in Talmud and Midrash are some
rather strict rules regarding breeding and inheritance, to be applied
to Jewish People.
When it applied to sheep, it was animal husbandry.. When it applied to
man it was "G-ds edict" , eh ?
After all, aren't the Jewish men taught,
"Your women are the keepers of your darkness"
The darkness equating to the physical nature of man,
or in the old language "Adamah", or more simply still,
"Mud". (That which you are made of...
ancient languages were limited)
The triangle of light inter-twined
with the triangle of darkness.....
The spiritual nature, intertwined with the physical,
The Star of David.
Ever heard the expression "Where is your better half ?"
>> Of course, some of the worse interpretations of Christianity are by
>> Christians.... Someone crucified their High Priest,
>> a lot appears to have been lost....
>>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>> Sounds like a classic case of foisting guilt onto someone else.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, the Xian crowd love guilt.
>
>
> And here I was thinking that the guilt market was cornered by the Jews.
> (although I have yet to see a better practicioner than my mother... My
> husband notes that I've learned at the feet of the Master.)
So, where do you think the Xians got it from ?
:D
"All religions are a reflection of Ancient Judaism" - Dali LLama
> -Wendy of NJ
>
Thorn
> countries, which has been called the "McDonaldization" of the world,
mostly
> because it refers to American cultural imports - aren't the consumers
> really to blame for this? If most French people didn't like McDonald's in
> their country, would so many of them eat there so much that they now face
> the same obesity problem we do? A Canadian friend of mine has complained
> about all the American imports, to the detriment of the purchase of
> Canadian-produced goods, but I asked *him* - well, who's buying all these
> American imports? Canadians, n'est-ce pas? Why don't you support your
own
> manufacturers by buying Canadian?
And in one of those interesting co-incidences it seems that the World is
having an affect on McDonalds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2924185.stm
The food chain has tailored a number of its products to the Indian market,
including the Paneer Salsa Wrap, McCurry Pan, McAloo Tikki and the mutton
speciality for a country which does not eat beef, the Chicken Maharaja Mac.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2927149.stm
The firm's executives have conceded that its approach is out of date and
would now change to give more healthy food and higher quality burgers.
Now if Bollywood can influence Hollywood we're on to a winner (well at least
some surreal films <g>)
--
Thorn
To your own self be true
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> Gods, I hope not. Although, if reincarnation is a valid thing, there may
> be past life stuff to be worked off.
The older I get, the more difficulty I have with this concept - and
for a very specific reason. The argument has been used in the past
to suggest that individuals who suffere(d) physical or sexual abuse
during childhood and that women who suffer rape have somehow "earned"
such trials and tribulations by actions taken (or not taken) during a
past life.
And yes, the suggestion above was made entirely seriously. Until I
actually learn the minds of the Lords of Karma, therefore (fat
chance!), I have resolved to be very, *very* careful about
pronouncements on the subject of Karmic retribution.
<snip>
Blessed be,
Baird
--
Modkin for soc.religion.paganism,
Modstaff for alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Newstaff, Inc. at newstaff.com - a network security company
Yowie
news:070420031935188363%aay...@sonic.net...
> In article <H0qka.360681$L1.103646@sccrnsc02>, Frenchy
> <fre...@spam-me-not.com> wrote:
>
> > But are the fruits of conquest necessarily always in the worst interests
of
> > the conquered people? What if the conquerors put an end to practices
that
> > are largely regarded as barbaric?
> [snip]
> > The U.S. has a long tradition of capital punishment, which is now
largely
> > regarded by the West as barbaric and inhumane (indeed, I think we're the
> > only Western country left in which it's practiced, if I'm not mistaken.)
>
> You've hit the nail on the head, Frenchy! With any sort of luck, a more
> civilized country should come and conquer the U.S., put an end to our
> barbaric quasi-civilization, and drag us kicking and screaming into the
> enlightened 21st century,
>
> And we'll all line up on the streets to throw flowers at the conquering
> troops, while we make bonfires of Eminem CDs.
>
> So, what enlightened empire is going to come liberate us?
The Vogons?
Yowie
Baird Stafford
> I squeeze a few drops from a fresh squid onto my cyber-quill because
> Yowie vouchsafed that:
<snip>
> >But we do have the traditional political plays of gerrymandering (moving
> >election boundaries around so that its not "exactly" proportional,
Sorry to piggyback (but I think I got the attribution right...).
The gerrymander is a creature whose natural home is the United
States. The creature was first described in the wild on a map of the
State of Massachussetts after the redrawing of political districts
mandated by the Census of 1810: map of at least one district in
Essex County looked rather like the outline of a salamander after the
party of Governor Elbrige Gerry redrew the lines to favor their own
political fortunes.
The animal has flourished into modern times, appearing every tenth
year or so immediately after a Census of the population of the United
States.
I had not realized that it had migrated to foreign climes, nor
naturalized itself quite so successfully.
Yowie
My hopes for a mad polly were dashed when Pauline Hanson failed to make it
into the senate. She provided hours of material for almost all comedians,
proffesional and otherwise. She too made it into the Mardis Gras, complete
with a head full of chips.
I'm starting to miss her and her "please explain", indeed, my fondest memory
of her is when she responded to a question regarding what her party would do
about Australia's ever growing debt and (at the time) rather sick looking
economy. Bless her little red neck, she replied without complete sincereity
that she'd fix it by "printing more money".
Now that Joh and his scones have gone, Paul and his piggery, Old Fred and
his frothing, Geoff and that hair, and Pauline and her fish & chip shop, all
we've got left is John Howard, Mr Anti-Charisma, and the roly poly humpty
dumpty Alexander representing Australia around the world. Even Bob Kattar
seems to be quiet these days.
Politics just ain't *fun* anymore.
Cast of players:
Joh - Joh Bejke-Peterson, a senile old git who could speak for three hours
and say absolutely nothing anyone cold understand. Ex-premier of the State
of Queensland, husband of Flo who made great pumpkin scones.
Paul - Paul Keating, the previous Prime Minsiter of Australia, who was
portrayed in political cartoons as a mortician (suited him) - he had a pig
farm that seemed to always benefit from his economic decisions.
Fred - Fred Nile, right-wing Christian Lunatic, and, coincidentally, part of
the board of my Alma Mater, the University of Wollongong (or at least, was,
when i was there)
Geoff - Geoff Kennett, ex hard-right premier of the State of Victoria, had
the oddest looking hair
Pauline - Pauline Hanson - redneck politician that had her 15 minutes of
fame. Her party did meet allt he legal requirements to form an official
political party and she was cahrged with fraud. Ironically, it believe she
had no intention of defrauding the governement, because as much as I despise
her politics, I truly believe that she is sincere. Just incredibly mind
bogglingly stupid and grossly niave.
Alexander - Alexander Downer. Tried being the the head of the (then)
opposition, but John Howard won in a competition of Charisma. Downer just
has no character at all, its hard to work up any enthusiasm either for or
against him.
Bob Kattar - Ranting right-wing loony who left a conservative party to run
as an independant. Could always be found to have a controversial opinion -
on anything. Good back-up for a slow news day.
Yowie
Yowie
news:3E918BD3...@hotmail.com...
> Frenchy wrote:
<snip!>
> > In short...are whole peoples responsible for the "sins of the fathers"?
>
> Gods, I hope not. Although, if reincarnation is a valid thing, there may
> be past life stuff to be worked off.
>
> And maybe this is Homo Sapien's return for wiping out the Neandertals.
> How far back do you want to go?
You guys ever heard of Terence McKenna? - he sorta turned into the Timothy
Leary of the '90's. The man did a serious amount of drugs, but the drugs
were what he considered "mind expanding" such as marijuana and psychadelics
(I'd never heard of DMT, a psychadelic, before this). Not only was he all
for (psychadelic) drugs, radical social reform and lots of other stuff I
can't wrap my mind around, he was also a great philosopher and poet (IMHO).
He has a theory on how far back we need to go...
>From the web site http://deoxy.org/mckenna#sword (the host site deoxy.org
and its sub pages hurts my brain - but is fascinating anyway), Terence
McKenna on his CD "Alien Dreamtime" had this to say about how far back is
ncessary:
1 - Archaic Revival
History is ending because the dominator culture has led the human species
into a blind alley, and as the inevitable chaostrophie approaches, people
look for metaphors and answers. Every time a culture gets into trouble it
casts itself back into the past looking for the last sane moment it ever
knew. And the last sane moment we ever knew was on the plains of Africa
15,000 years ago rocked in the cradle of the Great Horned Mushroom Goddess
before history, before standing armies, before slavery and property, before
warfare and phonetic alphabets and monotheism, before, before, before. And
this is where the future is taking us because the secret faith of the
twentieth century is not modernism, the secret faith of the twentieth
century is nostalgia for the archaic, nostalgia for the paleolithic, and
that gives us body piercing, abstract expressionism, surrealism, jazz,
rock-n-roll and catastrophe theory. The 20th century mind is nostalgic for
the paradise that once existed on the mushroom dotted plains of Africa where
the plant-human symbiosis occurred that pulled us out of the animal body and
into the tool-using, culture-making, imagination-exploring creature that we
are. And why does this matter? It matters because it shows that the way out
is back and that the future is a forward escape into the past. This is what
the psychedelic experience means. Its a doorway out of history and into the
wiring under the board in eternity. And I tell you this because if the
community understands what it is that holds it together the community will
be better able to streamline itself for flight into hyperspace because what
we need is a new myth, what we need is a new true story that tells us where
we're going in the universe and that true story is that the ego is a product
of pathology, and when psilocybin is regularly part of the human experience
the ego is supressed and the supression of the ego means the defeat of the
dominators, the materialists, the product peddlers. Psychedelics return us
to the inner worth of the self, to the importance of the feeling of
immediate experience - and nobody can sell that to you and nobody can buy it
from you, so the dominator culture is not interested in the felt presence of
immediate experience, but that's what holds the community together. And as
we break out of the silly myths of science, and the infantile obsessions of
the marketplace what we discover through the psychedelic experience is that
in the body, IN THE BODY, there are Niagras of beauty, alien beauty, alien
dimensions that are part of the self, the richest part of life. I think of
going to the grave without having a psychedelic experience like going to the
grave without ever having sex. It means that you never figured out what it
is all about. The mystery is in the body and the way the body works itself
into nature. What the Archaic Revival means is shamanism, ecstacy, orgiastic
sexuality, and the defeat of the three enemies of the people. And the three
enemies of the people are hegemony, monogamy and monotony! And if you get
them on the run you have the dominators sweating folks, because that means
your getting it all reconnected, and getting it all reconnected means
putting aside the idea of separateness and self-definition through
thing-fetish. Getting it all connected means tapping into the Gaian mind,
and the Gaian mind is what we're calling the psychedelic experience. Its an
experience of the living fact of the entelechy of the planet. And without
that experience we wander in a desert of bogus ideologies. But with that
experience the compass of the self can be set, and that's the idea; figuring
out how to reset the compass of the self through community, through ecstatic
dance, through psychedelics, sexuality, intelligence, INTELLIGENCE. This is
what we have to have to make the forward escape into hyperspace.
Yowie
-A.
Blessed Be,
-A.
Gale
<snip>
>
> So, what enlightened empire is going to come liberate us?
>
I'm kind of hoping for the Swiss -- I'm looking forward to seeing the
Swiss Guard, armed with pikes of course, marching down Pennsylvania Avenue.
voxwoman
> Wendy of NJ <voxw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Gods, I hope not. Although, if reincarnation is a valid thing, there may
> > be past life stuff to be worked off.
>
> The older I get, the more difficulty I have with this concept - and
> for a very specific reason. The argument has been used in the past
> to suggest that individuals who suffere(d) physical or sexual abuse
> during childhood and that women who suffer rape have somehow "earned"
> such trials and tribulations by actions taken (or not taken) during a
> past life.
>
> And yes, the suggestion above was made entirely seriously. Until I
> actually learn the minds of the Lords of Karma, therefore (fat
> chance!), I have resolved to be very, *very* careful about
> pronouncements on the subject of Karmic retribution.
>
I've come across people I've known "before" - and some of these
experiences have been wonderful, and some have just been a nightmare
(and some a combination of both). In some ways, I think it could be
described as "unfinished business" so some situations repeat
themselves, offering an opportunity to experience them differently,
and perhaps effect a better outcome. This happens repeatedly during
any particular lifetime as well. One of the most obvious areas is in
relationships (why do I keep dating losers? for example). So I guess
I'm applying the observations I've made in my current life and
extrapolating these observations into the "mechanics" of
reincarnation.
-Wendy of NJ
> <snip>
>
> Blessed be,
> Baird
Gale
<snip>
>
> I've come across people I've known "before" - and some of these
> experiences have been wonderful, and some have just been a nightmare
> (and some a combination of both). In some ways, I think it could be
> described as "unfinished business" so some situations repeat
> themselves, offering an opportunity to experience them differently,
> and perhaps effect a better outcome. This happens repeatedly during
> any particular lifetime as well. One of the most obvious areas is in
> relationships (why do I keep dating losers? for example). So I guess
> I'm applying the observations I've made in my current life and
> extrapolating these observations into the "mechanics" of
> reincarnation.
Sometimes I believe I've married the same woman twice -- in,
respectively, the Hyde then Dr. Jeckyll incarnations. There are (if I
dare admit it) similarities between my first spouse, with whom I shared
a brief (but much too long) interval of legal union, and my long-time
current spouse, with whom I've shared 18 delightful years and hope to
share many more.
Tiliqua
>Tiliqua <full...@bigFROGpond.com.au> wrote:
>
>> I squeeze a few drops from a fresh squid onto my cyber-quill because
>> Yowie vouchsafed that:
>
><snip>
>
>> >But we do have the traditional political plays of gerrymandering (moving
>> >election boundaries around so that its not "exactly" proportional,
>
>Sorry to piggyback (but I think I got the attribution right...).
Yes, it was Yowie's comment.
>
>The gerrymander is a creature whose natural home is the United
>States. The creature was first described in the wild on a map of the
>State of Massachussetts after the redrawing of political districts
>mandated by the Census of 1810: map of at least one district in
>Essex County looked rather like the outline of a salamander after the
>party of Governor Elbrige Gerry redrew the lines to favor their own
>political fortunes.
>
>The animal has flourished into modern times, appearing every tenth
>year or so immediately after a Census of the population of the United
>States.
>
>I had not realized that it had migrated to foreign climes, nor
>naturalized itself quite so successfully.
It's been identified as a feral pest and eradication programmes are in
place to extirpate it completely. Unfortunately, once they are
established, such infestations are very difficult to root out. There
is even suspicion that some misguided individuals who see immediate
personal short-term gains in the continued presence of the creature
are attempting to preserve and expand its range.
>
><snip>
>
>Blessed be,
>Baird
Wendy of NJ
In The Darkness wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not, as the Ancient Children of Israel practiced
> very strict breeding habits. Hence certain rules, such that a child
> of a Jewish woman was automatically Jewish... but, not of a Jewish Man..
Wouldn't that have something to do with the fact that you can't always
be 100% positive who the father is but you know for sure who the mother is?
<snip>
-Wendy
In The Darkness
Interesting thought, but afaict, the Jewish Sages had a saying
"Man, Woman is in charge of your Darkness!"
And to a woman, they say "Woman, You are redeemed through your childen!"
While it sounds really bigoted..
We have to delve into the Imagery of the Davidic Star, (Ie: Star of David)
One triangle pointed upwards, the Triangle of Light....
And One Triangle pointed downwards.... the Triangle of Darkness...
Or, of the Profane, Physical, or Material World.
(Think of the Tao)
"Man, woman is in charge of your darkness"
Could easily be taked to mean woman is in charge of the physical, or material....
As such, it certainly parallels many other saying and beliefs, such as the
inheretence of "Jewishness" through the female.. not unlike the original Pharoahs.
After all, in the end, wasn't the primordial "Eve" we were able to trace
genetically, not the Adam...
The "Mother of All", so to speak ?
>
> <snip>
> -Wendy
>
Wendy of NJ
In The Darkness wrote:
> Wendy of NJ wrote:
>
>> In The Darkness wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Perhaps, perhaps not, as the Ancient Children of Israel practiced
>>> very strict breeding habits. Hence certain rules, such that a child
>>> of a Jewish woman was automatically Jewish... but, not of a Jewish
>>> Man..
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't that have something to do with the fact that you can't always
>> be 100% positive who the father is but you know for sure who the
>> mother is?
>
>
> Interesting thought, but afaict, the Jewish Sages had a saying
>
> "Man, Woman is in charge of your Darkness!"
>
> And to a woman, they say "Woman, You are redeemed through your childen!"
>
> While it sounds really bigoted..
>
> We have to delve into the Imagery of the Davidic Star, (Ie: Star of
> David)
>
> One triangle pointed upwards, the Triangle of Light....
> And One Triangle pointed downwards.... the Triangle of Darkness...
>
> Or, of the Profane, Physical, or Material World.
>
> (Think of the Tao)
>
> "Man, woman is in charge of your darkness"
>
> Could easily be taked to mean woman is in charge of the physical, or
> material....
yes, and all that meshugah misogyny was one of the contributing factors
in my leaving that particular faith and finding Paganism.
>
> As such, it certainly parallels many other saying and beliefs, such
> as the
> inheretence of "Jewishness" through the female.. not unlike the
> original Pharoahs.
>
> After all, in the end, wasn't the primordial "Eve" we were able to
> trace
> genetically, not the Adam...
>
> The "Mother of All", so to speak ?
That's via the mitochondrial DNA (which is passed through the maternal
line). There are other tests that trace the paternal line, and was used
to determine if this one village in Africa were descended from Jews from
the first Diaspora (saw this one on "Nova," I think). This had to do
with a particular gene on the 'y' chromosome - inherited by males
exclusively from their fathers.
>
>>
>> <snip>
>> -Wendy
>>
>
In The Darkness
:(
(No pun intended)
:D
In The Darkness
I didn't spell the earlier post, sorry.
But, comment's interleaved.
Wendy of NJ wrote:
>
>
> In The Darkness wrote:
>
>> Wendy of NJ wrote:
>>
>>> In The Darkness wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Perhaps, perhaps not, as the Ancient Children of Israel practiced
>>>> very strict breeding habits. Hence certain rules, such that a child
>>>> of a Jewish woman was automatically Jewish... but, not of a Jewish
>>>> Man..
>>> Wouldn't that have something to do with the fact that you can't
>>> always be 100% positive who the father is but you know for sure who
>>> the mother is?
>> Interesting thought, but afaict, the Jewish Sages had a saying
>> "Man, Woman is in charge of your Darkness!"
>> And to a woman, they say "Woman, You are redeemed through your
>> childen!"
>> While it sounds really bigoted..
>> We have to delve into the Imagery of the Davidic Star, (Ie: Star of
>> David)
>> One triangle pointed upwards, the Triangle of Light....
>> And One Triangle pointed downwards.... the Triangle of Darkness...
>> Or, of the Profane, Physical, or Material World.
>> (Think of the Tao)
>> "Man, woman is in charge of your darkness"
>> Could easily be taken to mean woman is in charge of the physical,
>> or material....
>
> yes, and all that meshugah misogyny was one of the contributing factors
> in my leaving that particular faith and finding Paganism.
Interesting, but would you believe me when I tell you that the
religion of the Mother, and the religion of the Father (Ancient Pre-Judaism),
used to be flip sides of the same coin ?
(And I don't mean good and evil)
See: Sanhedrin writings... dating to the time of Solomon.
However, there is a very good reason the Jewish "hand me
downs" are so male bigoted.... that was the "religion of the Father",
which was intended for Men..... The religion of the Mother, was of
course, intended for the Women....
The Men of "The Father" never really forgave Semiramus,
when she usurped control of their Kingdom.... after Nimrod fell.
And, hence the documents that survived, and most perspectives,
were from the "Boys Club" side of the religion. So, of course,
they naturally reflected the bias of the target audience....
They even celebrated when her city finally fell...
"The Whore of Babylon has fallen".. little did they
know that Summaria's children, Ninevah,
would both be favored over -=them=- later,
but also would play a very important part in the story
of the world to come....
Most aspects of the Mothers religion survives through
what remains of an Ancient Diaspora that ends up in the
Celtic/Gaelic civilizations of Antiquity. This portion of
the religion, sort of like Noah of old, (and about the same time)
received a premonition to get out of town, and a sending....
a Stag, to follow..... Prior to the Great flood.
Of course, you are familiar with the symbol of the
Royal Stag, with 12 points ?
Should you look it up in the Xian OT,
you will find it is the -=Men=- who are punished
when the Women are pouring "libations"
to the "Queen of heaven", in Egypt, but nothing happens
to the Women... a subtle point.
So, in conclusion, AFAICT, you are -right- in line with
your native religion, having sought the Lady, as designed,
just not as interpreted in modern context.
She must love you, to have called so ... :)
And don't forget, at minimum, even not "practicing Judaism",
per say, your current practices fit well within the Covenant of
the B'Nai Noachide.. (sp)
So, rather than despair your native religion held nothing
for you... rejoice, your native religion as it -should- be,
sought you out, and found you worthy, and called....
Doesn't surprise me one bit....
The Mothers children were always more sensitive, that way.
Each had their favorites, eh ?
>> As such, it certainly parallels many other saying and beliefs,
>> such as the
>> inheretence of "Jewishness" through the female.. not unlike the
>> original Pharoahs.
>>
>> After all, in the end, wasn't the primordial "Eve" we were able to
>> trace
>> genetically, not the Adam...
>>
>> The "Mother of All", so to speak ?
>
>
> That's via the mitochondrial DNA (which is passed through the maternal
> line). There are other tests that trace the paternal line, and was used
> to determine if this one village in Africa were descended from Jews from
> the first Diaspora (saw this one on "Nova," I think). This had to do
> with a particular gene on the 'y' chromosome - inherited by males
> exclusively from their fathers.
So, were they ? I had not heard of the study of the "y" chromosome...
or, its outcome. Don't leave me waiting....
>>> <snip>
>>> -Wendy
Wendy of NJ
I can't remember. I think so.
>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> -Wendy
>>>
>
>
Leigh
>
> And in one of those interesting co-incidences it seems that the World is
> having an affect on McDonalds.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2924185.stm
> The food chain has tailored a number of its products to the Indian market,
> including the Paneer Salsa Wrap, McCurry Pan, McAloo Tikki and the mutton
> speciality for a country which does not eat beef, the Chicken Maharaja Mac.
>
Nothing new. Israel had McDavid's 30 years ago. No milkshakes and no mayo on
the burgers.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2927149.stm
> The firm's executives have conceded that its approach is out of date and
> would now change to give more healthy food and higher quality burgers.
>
> Now if Bollywood can influence Hollywood we're on to a winner (well at least
> some surreal films <g>)
Now those both sound worthwhile. (and a lot more musicals);-)
bw
Leigh
Thorn
"Leigh" <chris...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ff481665.03040...@posting.google.com...
> Nothing new. Israel had McDavid's 30 years ago. No milkshakes and no mayo
on
> the burgers.
Is it really called McDavid's in Israel or is that a local nickname?
>
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2927149.stm
> > The firm's executives have conceded that its approach is out of date and
> > would now change to give more healthy food and higher quality burgers.
> >
> > Now if Bollywood can influence Hollywood we're on to a winner (well at
least
> > some surreal films <g>)
>
> Now those both sound worthwhile. (and a lot more musicals);-)
I know they've just introduced organic milk and apple slices to their happy
meals over here (not that it impressed my son <g>)
Musicals are good :)
Brock Ulfsen
Or an echo of the ancient matrilinear (not matriarchal)
traditions of the peoples the jews were descended from in
mesopotamia.
....Brock.
Tiliqua
They've been flogging the "Aussie Burger" here for a while, 'cos we
seem to like sliced beetroot and/or pineapple on ours. I have NO idea
who started that suggestion so please don't ask for clarification, I'm
just as mystified as anybody else.
Tiliqua
That was certainly the case when I had to prove British "patriality"
for an entry visa. The British immigration authorities weren't
interested in Dad's birth certificate, but looked at Mum's instead.
Does this make British descent matrilineal as well?
Tiliqua
>Wendy of NJ wrote:
>> In The Darkness wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Perhaps, perhaps not, as the Ancient Children of Israel practiced
>>> very strict breeding habits. Hence certain rules, such that a child
>>> of a Jewish woman was automatically Jewish... but, not of a Jewish
>>> Man..
>>
>> Wouldn't that have something to do with the fact that you can't always
>> be 100% positive who the father is but you know for sure who the mother is?
>
(snipped priestly caste interpretations and interpolations)
>
> As such, it certainly parallels many other saying and beliefs, such as the
> inheretence of "Jewishness" through the female.. not unlike the original Pharoahs.
>
> After all, in the end, wasn't the primordial "Eve" we were able to trace
> genetically, not the Adam...
And wasn't that the point of Wendy's post? The mother of a child is
(and certainly WAS) empirically identifiable much more clearly than
the father.
>
> The "Mother of All", so to speak ?
>
>>
>> <snip>
>> -Wendy
>>
May the Lord and The Lady prosper your ventures
In The Darkness
Second that thought!
Chicken, or Egg... interesting.
> ....Brock.
>
Yowie
news:<b6tp68$8teji$1...@ID-151225.news.dfncis.de>...
> >
> > And in one of those interesting co-incidences it seems that the World is
> > having an affect on McDonalds.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2924185.stm
> > The food chain has tailored a number of its products to the Indian
market,
> > including the Paneer Salsa Wrap, McCurry Pan, McAloo Tikki and the
mutton
> > speciality for a country which does not eat beef, the Chicken Maharaja
Mac.
> >
>
> Nothing new. Israel had McDavid's 30 years ago. No milkshakes and no mayo
on
> the burgers.
Why no mayo? Isn't mayo made of oil + vinegar + sugar + "flavourings" +
emulsifier? Whata non-kosher about that?
Milkshakes should also be OK if (as I understand Kosher) the milkshakes were
prepared in a seperate area of the kitchen dedicated to milkshakes? Or is
the problem more of the customers consuming meat and milk in the same meal?
I guess the don't have cheese on their burgers either?
There are a few Halal McDonalds here in Australia, on is in Lakemba (a
suburb of Sydney) where Australia's biggest mosque is. The area has a high
concentration of Arab Muslim immigrants.
Yowie
Yowie
Some of my friends in the States were quite shocked when I said our "good"
hamburgers (ie, not from a franchised fast food chain but rather the corner
"fish & chip shop") consisted of:
(generally in this order)
A bun (white pappy sweetish bread) which was toasted and buttered
Shredded lettuce
A few slices of tomato
A few slices of (pickled) beetroot - out of a can
The minced beef rissole/patty
Fried onions, and
Sauce (tomato or BBQ usually) with the option extras of:
Fried bacon
Fried pinepapple
Cheese (which is put on the bun and toasted with it)
Fried Egg
A "hawaiian" is the standard burger with the bacon & pineapple, and it isn't
uncommon to get a burger "with the lot".
Without fail, they all shuddered at the thought of the beetroot and the
fried pineapple on the burger. Me, I couldn't imagine a (good) burger
without beetroot, and I prefer mine with the lot.
Yowie
Bob
Hmmmm? I don't think I've ever had beetroot on anything. Pineapple
sounds strange but if you like them go for it. Some people even put it
on pizza.
Hamburgers are lost without lots of hot green chili.
Bob
Bob
> "Leigh" <chris...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ff481665.03040...@posting.google.com...
>
>>"Thorn" <thorn...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:<b6tp68$8teji$1...@ID-151225.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>>>And in one of those interesting co-incidences it seems that the World is
>>>having an affect on McDonalds.
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2924185.stm
>>>The food chain has tailored a number of its products to the Indian
>>
> market,
>
>>>including the Paneer Salsa Wrap, McCurry Pan, McAloo Tikki and the
>>
> mutton
>
>>>speciality for a country which does not eat beef, the Chicken Maharaja
>>
> Mac.
>
>>Nothing new. Israel had McDavid's 30 years ago. No milkshakes and no mayo
>
> on
>
>>the burgers.
>
>
> Why no mayo? Isn't mayo made of oil + vinegar + sugar + "flavourings" +
> emulsifier? Whata non-kosher about that?
Real mayo has lots of egg in it. Not so the imitation plastic stuff.
> Milkshakes should also be OK if (as I understand Kosher) the milkshakes were
> prepared in a seperate area of the kitchen dedicated to milkshakes? Or is
> the problem more of the customers consuming meat and milk in the same meal?
> I guess the don't have cheese on their burgers either?
At McDs around here they took the milk out of the "shakes" some years
ago. It's all imitation plastic oil and crap. I think the recipe
varies with location though.
Bob
Yowie
> >>Nothing new. Israel had McDavid's 30 years ago. No milkshakes and no
mayo
> >
> > on
> >
> >>the burgers.
> >
> >
> > Why no mayo? Isn't mayo made of oil + vinegar + sugar + "flavourings" +
> > emulsifier? Whata non-kosher about that?
>
> Real mayo has lots of egg in it. Not so the imitation plastic stuff.
Does the inclusion of eggs make the mayo non-kosher, or is it the inclusion
of raw eggs, or is it soemthing else entirely (I don't know much about
kosher law at all)? A pretty decent tasting mayo (IMHO) can be made without
eggs, althouhg lecithin, which is what would probably be used, is of course
derived from egg yolks.
Maybe its not kosher but a cultural thing - Aussie Macca burgers don'tt seem
to have noticeable mayo on them either (well, not the "beef" ones anyway)
> > Milkshakes should also be OK if (as I understand Kosher) the milkshakes
were
> > prepared in a seperate area of the kitchen dedicated to milkshakes? Or
is
> > the problem more of the customers consuming meat and milk in the same
meal?
> > I guess the don't have cheese on their burgers either?
>
> At McDs around here they took the milk out of the "shakes" some years
> ago. It's all imitation plastic oil and crap. I think the recipe
> varies with location though.
We don't have McD milkshakes here, we have "thickshakes". I think that
allows them to not have to use milk if they don't want to since it doens't
mention the word "milk".
While I don't mind the stuff sold under the McDonald Cafe banner, because
that has both the appearance and taste of real food, and I get to see them
making the coffee (also cheaper than many other cafes in the same location),
I won't eat their burgers and the like, given the choice, just on principle.
Yowie
francis freespirit
<yowi...@yahoo.com.au> writes
>Milkshakes should also be OK if (as I understand Kosher) the milkshakes
>were prepared in a seperate area of the kitchen dedicated to
>milkshakes? Or is the problem more of the customers consuming meat and
>milk in the same meal? I guess the don't have cheese on their burgers
>either?
As I understand it, the custom begins with the Biblical injunction "Thou
shalt not sieve a kid in its mother's milk" which, being interpreted,
means you must not consume both meat and a milk product at the same
meal.
--
Francis
Leigh
> Yowie wrote:
<snip>
> > Why no mayo? Isn't mayo made of oil + vinegar + sugar + "flavourings" +
> > emulsifier? Whata non-kosher about that?
>
> Real mayo has lots of egg in it. Not so the imitation plastic stuff.
>
>
> > Milkshakes should also be OK if (as I understand Kosher) the milkshakes were
> > prepared in a seperate area of the kitchen dedicated to milkshakes? Or is
> > the problem more of the customers consuming meat and milk in the same meal?
> > I guess the don't have cheese on their burgers either?
I don't remember much about the rules for Kosher food but yes you cannot have
dairy and meat products in the same meal.
> At McDs around here they took the milk out of the "shakes" some years
> ago. It's all imitation plastic oil and crap. I think the recipe
> varies with location though.
No milk? Then they shouldn't call it a milkshake.
'Plastic oil and crap drink' doesn't do it for me.
bw
Leigh
Cricket
They call them "shakes" around here. The only descriptive is flavor -
chocolate "shake", vanilla "shake". Not encouraging.
>
> bw
> Leigh
>
Thorn
"Yowie" <yowi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:b75461$bbci5$1...@ID-159608.news.dfncis.de...
>
> A "hawaiian" is the standard burger with the bacon & pineapple, and it
isn't
> uncommon to get a burger "with the lot".
>
> Without fail, they all shuddered at the thought of the beetroot and the
> fried pineapple on the burger. Me, I couldn't imagine a (good) burger
> without beetroot, and I prefer mine with the lot.
Ahh pineapple and bacon on the burger now that makes sense, though not a
beetroot never a beetrooot (childhood trauma).
Bob
I'm glad I'm pagan sometimes. I attended a COG MerryMeet some years ago
held at a rented Jewish camp. The camp kitchen had two sets of dishes
because a plate used for a meal with dairy couldn't be used for a meal
with meat. It was a long way from "do as you will" and was inconvenient
to say the least.
Blessings
Bob
Gale
<snip>
>
> I'm glad I'm pagan sometimes. I attended a COG MerryMeet some years ago
> held at a rented Jewish camp. The camp kitchen had two sets of dishes
> because a plate used for a meal with dairy couldn't be used for a meal
> with meat. It was a long way from "do as you will" and was inconvenient
> to say the least.
My spouse (Reform Jewish) does not observe kosher; several of her
friends (also Reform) do, partially (they don't do the separate sets of
dishes, but ...). Even with them there is much more to it than "no pig."
I agree, it strikes me as a pain in the ***. ;-)
Tiliqua
You got it all in there, Yowie, and you've made my eyes water with
gut-lust.
Dammit, girl, it's just gone 6:45am I haven't even had my first
coffeee (it's waiting on the table in the mext room) and already
you've made me hunger for tucker I haven't had since 1998!
AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
Tiliqua
Yowie vouchsafed that:
>
>We don't have McD milkshakes here, we have "thickshakes". I think that
>allows them to not have to use milk if they don't want to since it doens't
>mention the word "milk".
Our consumer protection laws have restricted their advertising and
nakming practices, somewhat.
>
>While I don't mind the stuff sold under the McDonald Cafe banner, because
>that has both the appearance and taste of real food, and I get to see them
>making the coffee (also cheaper than many other cafes in the same location),
>I won't eat their burgers and the like, given the choice, just on principle.
>
>Yowie
I have to be very drunk to eat Macca's. I only go there if I know I'm
going to need something in my stomach to get rid of shortly.
I haven't done THAT in fifteen years.
Wendy of NJ
Yowie wrote:
> "Leigh" <chris...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ff481665.03040...@posting.google.com...
>
>>"Thorn" <thorn...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:<b6tp68$8teji$1...@ID-151225.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>>>And in one of those interesting co-incidences it seems that the World is
>>>having an affect on McDonalds.
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2924185.stm
>>>The food chain has tailored a number of its products to the Indian
>>
> market,
>
>>>including the Paneer Salsa Wrap, McCurry Pan, McAloo Tikki and the
>>
> mutton
>
>>>speciality for a country which does not eat beef, the Chicken Maharaja
>>
> Mac.
>
>>Nothing new. Israel had McDavid's 30 years ago. No milkshakes and no mayo
>
> on
>
>>the burgers.
>
>
> Why no mayo? Isn't mayo made of oil + vinegar + sugar + "flavourings" +
> emulsifier? Whata non-kosher about that?
>
> Milkshakes should also be OK if (as I understand Kosher) the milkshakes were
> prepared in a seperate area of the kitchen dedicated to milkshakes? Or is
> the problem more of the customers consuming meat and milk in the same meal?
> I guess the don't have cheese on their burgers either?
LOL. McDonald's hasn't sold a milk shake in 20 years. They're called
"Thick Shakes" and there's absolutely no milk in it. (What *is* in
there, you ask? Bwahahahahaaaaaa!)
Gale
<snip>
>
> LOL. McDonald's hasn't sold a milk shake in 20 years. They're called
> "Thick Shakes" and there's absolutely no milk in it. (What *is* in
> there, you ask? Bwahahahahaaaaaa!)
Suggestion: Read this book:
Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal
by Eric Schlosser
# Publisher: HarperCollins; 1st paperback edition (January 8, 2002)
# ISBN: 0060938455
It will tell you much that you'd really rather not know about your
dinner. (Though I don't think it explains about the shakes -- it only
talks about the organic elements of the meal.)
Frenchy
> In article <H0qka.360681$L1.103646@sccrnsc02>, Frenchy
> <fre...@spam-me-not.com> wrote:
>
>> But are the fruits of conquest necessarily always in the worst interests
>> of
>> the conquered people? What if the conquerors put an end to practices
>> that are largely regarded as barbaric?
> [snip]
>> The U.S. has a long tradition of capital punishment, which is now largely
>> regarded by the West as barbaric and inhumane (indeed, I think we're the
>> only Western country left in which it's practiced, if I'm not mistaken.)
>
> You've hit the nail on the head, Frenchy! With any sort of luck, a more
> civilized country should come and conquer the U.S., put an end to our
> barbaric quasi-civilization, and drag us kicking and screaming into the
> enlightened 21st century,
>
> And we'll all line up on the streets to throw flowers at the conquering
> troops, while we make bonfires of Eminem CDs.
>
> So, what enlightened empire is going to come liberate us?
I don't know, but George Bush has set a precedent with his "pre-emptive"
war against a country that never attacked us, and which, at the time of
this writing, still has yet to provide any evidence of possession of WMD.
And we *would* be ripe for an external coup, would we not? After all,
Georgie-Boy has more in common with Saddam than he might like to admit...he
was "elected" in a highly questionable manner, he possesses WMD, many
people in the world regard him as a dangerous madman, and he has illegally
invaded a foreign country that didn't attack him first. Canada, you can't
stand being associated with us anyway, care to "liberate" us...? ;)
Frenchy
--
"The Arabs like to whine about the injustice of the Crusades, but seem to
forget that they were the invaders in that part of the world. The "legal"
seat of government when they came pouring in was Constantinople. Why do you
think they call it Istanbul? Because of an illegal and unjust invasion." -
Joe Reese
Find the cure for the common religion! Deify Yourself at
http://www.tftb.com/deify
Childfree - It's A Choice! http://www.tftb.com/childfree
Public Enemy #1 for being half-French, one-quarter German & not enough
English to make up for either!