Iraqi cleric: 9/11 was a 'miracle from God'
Kristopher
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/26/iraq.main/index.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An influential Shiite cleric in Iraq
called Israel's assassination of the spiritual leader of
Hamas a "dirty crime against Islam" and the September 11,
2001, terror attacks "a miracle from God."
"The religion of peace..."
--
Kristopher
Kip Williams
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Donald Spitz...
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Bad enough having [expletive] flu, without being crucified." --John
Cleese (after Monty Python's Life of Brian)
Damien R. Sullivan
>Kristopher wrote:
>> "The religion of peace..."
>
>Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Donald Spitz...
Dominion theology and Christian Reconstructionism
http://www.weeklyplanet.com/cover.html
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/chrisre1.html
Would-be Christian theocrats in the US. They make Iran seem like an
attractive place to live, especially for women. I think they're directly
comparable to the Taliban in intent and scriptural literalness.
-xx- Damien X-)
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:c42if5$qp6$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu:
Irv Rubin, Rabbi Meir Kahane.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Russell Watson is to opera as Velveeta™ is to aged cheddar cheese
Pete McCutchen
>Kristopher wrote:
>
>> Friday, March 26, 2004 Posted: 4:22 PM EST (2122 GMT)
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/26/iraq.main/index.html
>>
>> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An influential Shiite cleric in Iraq
>> called Israel's assassination of the spiritual leader of
>> Hamas a "dirty crime against Islam" and the September 11,
>> 2001, terror attacks "a miracle from God."
>>
>> "The religion of peace..."
>
>Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Donald Spitz...
Not a valid comparison.
First of all, neither Pat Robertson nor Jerry Falwall (I don't know
who this Spitz guy is) advocates violence against members of other
faiths. They may well believe that God will let non-Christians feel
his wrath at some point, but they don't advocate attacks on, say,
Muslims. Nor do they call it a "miracle" when a bunch of Muslims get
killed.
Second, Falwell and Robertson are opposed by large segments of the
Christian community. While a (very) few Muslims have spoken out
against terror, opposition to Muslim terrorism would appear to be a
minority position in the Muslim world. By Muslim standards, Pat
Robertson and Jerry Falwell are models of tolerance.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
_Reason_ had an article about them a while back.
The difference, however, is that Christian Reconstructionists
represent a small minority. The Muslim equivalents are mainstream
figures. The movement to establish Sharia law, for example, is fairly
widespread. Whole countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, are run b
the functional equivalents of Christian Reconstructionists. (And yes,
I'm aware that the Iranians and Saudis are members of different
groups. As it happens, political Islam has infected both the Shiite
and Sunni strains of Islam.)
--
Pete McCutchen
Kip Williams
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:46:53 -0500, Kip Williams <ki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Kristopher wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Friday, March 26, 2004 Posted: 4:22 PM EST (2122 GMT)
>>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/26/iraq.main/index.html
>>>
>>> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An influential Shiite cleric in Iraq
>>> called Israel's assassination of the spiritual leader of
>>> Hamas a "dirty crime against Islam" and the September 11,
>>> 2001, terror attacks "a miracle from God."
>>>
>>>"The religion of peace..."
>>
>>Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Donald Spitz...
>
>
> Not a valid comparison.
>
> First of all, neither Pat Robertson nor Jerry Falwall (I don't know
> who this Spitz guy is) advocates violence against members of other
> faiths. They may well believe that God will let non-Christians feel
> his wrath at some point, but they don't advocate attacks on, say,
> Muslims. Nor do they call it a "miracle" when a bunch of Muslims get
> killed.
They also don't drink the same brand of milk. BD. They're petty-minded
zealots who use tragic events to try and paint a picture of a god who is
on their side. Oh, and they also don't work out of the same town or
drive the same model car.
> Second, Falwell and Robertson are opposed by large segments of the
> Christian community. While a (very) few Muslims have spoken out
> against terror, opposition to Muslim terrorism would appear to be a
> minority position in the Muslim world. By Muslim standards, Pat
> Robertson and Jerry Falwell are models of tolerance.
So damn what? I'm talking about "religion of peace, my ass" here, not
whether they have the exact same tattoos or haircuts.
Damien R. Sullivan
>The difference, however, is that Christian Reconstructionists
>represent a small minority. The Muslim equivalents are mainstream
With a lot of influence according to the articles. Leadership of the Southern
Baptists, for example. The Rutherford Institute. Lots of stealth
infiltration of the Republicans and such.
>widespread. Whole countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, are run b
>the functional equivalents of Christian Reconstructionists. (And yes,
I thought I pointed out in my post that Iran is *not* the functional
equivalent of these people. Women in Iran can and do vote, get elected, have
careers outside the home, etc. Men can vote without being "good Muslims".
Iran, remember, was not one of the three countries which recognized the
Taliban. These people want suffrage restricted to theologically correct men,
women in the home, stoning for everything in Leviticus, with a good dollop of
racism and slavery as well.
I'll grant Islam seems to have a more widespread presence of some level of
Koranic literalness than Christianity, mostly reflecting recent growth of
fundamentalism in Islam and secular erosion of Christian literalism in the
West. These people want to reverse all that, and while they may be small,
they seem not small enough. And organized enough to make a mess.
-xx- Damien X-)
Danny Low
(Damien R. Sullivan) wrote:
>I thought I pointed out in my post that Iran is *not* the functional
>equivalent of these people. Women in Iran can and do vote, get elected, have
>careers outside the home, etc.
A Google search on "Iran women's rights" gives several pages of
articles that show this claim is not what it seems. Sharia law forbids
women from holding many jobs. So while a woman may have a career, the
choices of careers is very limited. Sharia requires women wear only
certain types of clothing. Adultery is punishable by death for the
woman but not the man and these executions are carried out today.
Unlike the "Christian theocrats" this the law of Iran and not the
views of a very small minority generally repudiate by the majority.
Danny
Don't question authority. What makes you think they
know anything? (Remove the first dot for a valid e-mail
address)
Danny Low
(Damien R. Sullivan) wrote:
>With a lot of influence according to the articles. Leadership of the Southern
>Baptists, for example. The Rutherford Institute. Lots of stealth
>infiltration of the Republicans and such.
Their influence has not changed the law of the land. OTOH Sharia is
the law of the land in Iran and the rights they grant women is far
less than that in the USA. Women in both law and reality have far more
rights and freedom in the USA than they do in Iran.
Keith F. Lynch
> Idaho was prosecuting pregnant teenagers for fornication last I
> checked, ...
Presumably last June's Supreme Court ruling put an end to that.
Any good lawyer would point out that the state had no evidence that
the pregnant teenager didn't get that way via artificial insemination,
or that she hadn't been married in another state, and move to dismiss
the charges.
> some states keep trying to remove evolution from the curriculum,
If schools really served the interests of their students, they'd teach
what to say when questioned by the police: Nothing. It seems harmless
enough for a pregnant teenager to answer polite informal questions
from a friendly non-threatening policeman as to whether she's ever
been married or has ever had artificial insemination, right? After
all, civics classes teach that one should always cooperate with the
authorities...
While I believe in evolution, millions of Americans don't, and
reasonably argue that their tax money should not be used to teach
ideas that make their religion out to be lies. (If evolution is true,
the Old Testament is obviously false.) I think the only sensible
compromise is to use no tax money at all for schools.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
TekTeam26
>represent a small minority. The Muslim equivalents are mainstream
>figures. The movement to establish Sharia law, for example, is fairly
>widespread. Whole countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, are run b
>the functional equivalents of Christian Reconstructionists. (And yes,
>I'm aware that the Iranians and Saudis are members of different
>groups. As it happens, political Islam has infected both the Shiite
>and Sunni strains of Islam.)
>--
>
>Pete McCutchen
>
>
I have to agree with you. There are far too many people here who look for
any excuse to bash people of faith with the examples of the more extreme views
which do not reflect the attitudes. This is especially true of those who wish
to bash Christians. I am a born-again Christian and a science fiction fan.
While I will share my faith with others at an appropriate time, I will not
shove my faith down their throats. Faith is an individual choice, not something
that is forced by the state or any other large organization. Morality however
is the basis of all viable societies because without it, the selfish behavior
of all people will tend to lead to chaos and destruction. Freedom is very
important but each individual must understand that Freedom must be tempered
with responsibility and self-restraint. For the majority of Christians, that
check on our baser instincts is provided by our faith in the Lord and the
structures of self-imposed morality that it entails, not upon the State
imposing a particular religion upon us. Unfortunately, this is exactly the
opposite of what the Muslim fundamentalists who sponsor terrorism and the
spread of Sharia by the sword believe in. Free choice in the faith that we
follow is a vital element in the true tenets of Christianity along with the
acknowledgement of the consequences of our decisions and the responsibility
that we as individuals must bear for them.
So everyone, please lay off of the use of the minority of extremists of any
faith to label the entire group as being somehow vile and beneath contempt.
Jerry Hall
TekTeam26
>last I checked, some states keep trying to remove evolution from the
>curriculum, government money goes to "faith based" organizations in
>violation of the first ammendment...
>
>--
Paul,
While there are some archaic laws from over 100 years ago that are still on
the books, that doesn't mean the Christian literalists have taken over the
entire country and intend to return it to the middle ages (unlike what the
fundamentalist Muslims DO want to accomplish) And faith-based programs are NOT
a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. They can be a very
useful means of providing services to people using organizations whose vested
interests have always been to help people in need and to improve the condition
of their community. Those people whose blind hatred of anything to do with
religious organizations often fail to see that these church related groups do a
lot of good and help eliminate the root cause for many of the communities in a
far more effective and efficient manner than the equivalent government
organization. Often a person whose motivation is the love of his or her fellow
man can be more effective in solving the communities' problems than the local
bureaucrat whose job will go away when the problem goes away.
Jerry Hall
Karl Johanson
> I have to agree with you. There are far too many people here who look
for
> any excuse to bash people of faith with the examples of the more extreme
views
> which do not reflect the attitudes. This is especially true of those who
wish
> to bash Christians.
>I am a born-again Christian and a science fiction fan.
> While I will share my faith with others at an appropriate time, I will not
> shove my faith down their throats.
What do you consider 'appropriate times'? If I believed, as the Christian
Bible clearly states, that unbelievers get burned for all eternity by an
omnipotent deity, I'd consider every minute of the day appropriate for
trying to convince people to join the one true religion which allows them to
avoid that infinite torture. (Gad, just think about sticking your hand over
a Bic lighter for 30 seconds, and compare that to all consuming fire for all
eternity.) That's just me though. Maybe some only 'sort of' believe.
>Faith is an individual choice, not something
> that is forced by the state or any other large organization.
It should be anyway.
>Morality however
> is the basis of all viable societies because without it, the selfish
behavior
> of all people will tend to lead to chaos and destruction.
>Freedom is very
> important but each individual must understand that Freedom must be
tempered
> with responsibility and self-restraint.
Very well said. My 'right' to swing my arm stops at your face, for example.
>For the majority of Christians, that
> check on our baser instincts is provided by our faith in the Lord and the
> structures of self-imposed morality that it entails, not upon the State
> imposing a particular religion upon us. Unfortunately, this is exactly the
> opposite of what the Muslim fundamentalists who sponsor terrorism and the
> spread of Sharia by the sword believe in. Free choice in the faith that we
> follow is a vital element in the true tenets of Christianity along with
the
> acknowledgement of the consequences of our decisions and the
responsibility
> that we as individuals must bear for them.
Must have read different versions of the Bible than I have. As for
'responsibility' of one's own actions; some parts of the religion suggest
that if you 'sin', and are let off the hook if you believe the right way &
ask for forgiveness. Sounds like the opposite of 'responsibility'. Other
parts of the book suggests that people were responsible for the supposed
sins of others. Everyone was supposedly somehow responsible for Adam & Eve's
alleged 'sins', till a scape god came by & took some of the flak for us.
Similarly, people are responsible for the 'sins' of their ancestors back six
or seven generations.
I haven't seen any part of the Bible which suggests that "Free choice in the
faith that we follow is a vital element in the true tenets of Christianity".
(And is a choice 'free' if the consequences of the 'wrong' choice are
burning for all eternity?) Good on you for adopting that tenet (speaks very
well of you), but I suggest that the tenet came from you personally. The
Bible doesn't teach tolerating free choice of religions. It teaches that you
should kill people who would suggest believing other religions:
Deuteronomy 13 "6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or
thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own
soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which
thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto
thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the
other end of the earth;
8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall
thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal
him:
9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to
put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people."
You seem like way to nice a person to base your religion on the Bible. I
could be wrong. Have you ever stoned your neighbours to death for working on
the Sabbath? (Matt 5: 17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or
the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say
unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.")
See what the Christian Bible says about people who've made the free choice
to be witches. Does the word 'tolerant' leap out at you?
> So everyone, please lay off of the use of the minority of extremists of
any
> faith to label the entire group
A common problem, labelling all of a group by their worst example. In my
personal case, I no more judge you by the actions of, for example, the
Christian Hitler, than I expected to be judged for the actions of the
atheist Stalin.
>as being somehow vile and beneath contempt.
Interesting that you chose to use the word "vile". You could have chose any
of an infinite number of possible religions. Instead you chose to be a
member of one of the religions who's holy book says that atheists are vile,
corrupt and that they do no good. I don't deny that 'bashing' of some
Christians happens some times, but I was defined as 'vile' by your holy book
millennia before I was even born. Is it 'bashing' if non-believers respond
to the Bible's bigotry by showing examples that belief is not necessarily
synonymous with non-vileness? Or if they respond to Christian claims that
Muslimism is violent, with similar examples of Christian violence?
Your request was a fair one. I'll make a request as well: I think also a
fair one. Please denounce the part of the Bible which calls me vile. I'll
respect your religious choice more. (Perhaps you might also take time to
denounce the idea of stoning rape victims who don't scream loud enough &
calls to dash babies to pieces.)
While I'll respect your choice more, I won't join you. I'm colour blind, so
my handicap would profane any alters of God I approached (and I like Polycot
too much and enjoy being taught by women).
Karl Johanson
-Isaiah 13 16 "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their
eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."
-Psalms 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones
against the stones"
Pete McCutchen
(Damien R. Sullivan) wrote:
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>The difference, however, is that Christian Reconstructionists
>>represent a small minority. The Muslim equivalents are mainstream
>
>With a lot of influence according to the articles. Leadership of the Southern
Well, I'm not sure I find the articles particularly persuasive on
their broader claims. Both of the articles that you cite use a bit of
rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Basically, they note the existence of the
CRs, then observe that there are others whose views are in some
respects similar, from which they conclude that the CRs are incredibly
influential.
I don't deny that these guys are fruitbats; I just deny that they're
particularly important fruitbats. I think that, upon inspection, you
will find that these guys are less influential among mainstream
Republicans than, say, Noam Chomsky is among mainstream Democrats.
Despite being about equally looney.
Or consider ANSWER, a front group for the Stalinist pro-North Korea
Workers' World Party. Quite a few anti-war types are quite taken
aback when it's suggested that they should perhaps refrain from
participating in demonstrations organized by these guys. (Including,
if you recall, Patrick Nielsen-Hayden.) To a great extent, they've
set the tone for the whole anti-war movement, and their arguments
often end up reflected in the arguments of more respectable figures.
I honestly don't see conservatives organizing demonstrations under the
umbrella of CRs the way many on the mainstream left feel willing to be
organized by folks every bit as totalitarian as the CRs.
By the way, here's the _Reason_ article to which I referred. As you
know, Bob, _Reason_ is a libertarian publication. And it's worth
noting that this particular article references another article
criticizing the Christian Reconstructionists. This one written by two
Falwell associates and published in the Heritage Foundation's _Policy
Review_. So it's fair to say that the more mainstream right, in both
its libertarian and conservative wings, has been critical of the CRs.
http://reason.com/9811/col.olson.shtml
Of course it's worth watching folks like this. One should criticize
their noxious ideas, and take note of their influence when it's real.
However, I honestly think that fears of the US becoming a _Handmaid's
Tale_ style theocracy are a bit overblown. Absent some sort of major
social upheaval -- a Great Depression type event, or the equivalent --
I just don't see it as being particularly worrisome.
>Baptists, for example. The Rutherford Institute. Lots of stealth
>infiltration of the Republicans and such.
The problem with "stealth" infiltration, though, is that the stealth
infiltrator who shows his true colors and begins to advocate for a
theocracy will quickly lose support. The _Reason_ article that I
cited above talked about that happening in a couple of cases.
>
>>widespread. Whole countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, are run b
>>the functional equivalents of Christian Reconstructionists. (And yes,
>
>I thought I pointed out in my post that Iran is *not* the functional
>equivalent of these people. Women in Iran can and do vote, get elected, have
>careers outside the home, etc. Men can vote without being "good Muslims".
>Iran, remember, was not one of the three countries which recognized the
>Taliban. These people want suffrage restricted to theologically correct men,
Iran is more liberal (in the classic sense) that Saudi Arabia or
Afghanistan under the Taliban, but it's still a theocracy. And
women's rights are still highly restricted. Maybe the mullahs are
marginally better than the CRs, would be at their worst, but not much.
And they share a fundamental premise: that the large questions of
social organization have answers dictated by God. The basic
non-theocratic conception, by contrast, sees social order as something
that's established by humans.
>women in the home, stoning for everything in Leviticus, with a good dollop of
>racism and slavery as well.
>
>I'll grant Islam seems to have a more widespread presence of some level of
>Koranic literalness than Christianity, mostly reflecting recent growth of
Well, thanks for granting that, at least.
>fundamentalism in Islam and secular erosion of Christian literalism in the
>West. These people want to reverse all that, and while they may be small,
>they seem not small enough. And organized enough to make a mess.
Sure, they're nuts. Certainly, it's worth writing articles about how
nuts they are. But given the power of American popular culture,
they're not a real danger. The left is by far more organized, more
influential, and more dangerous. I'm not saying that these guys
aren't enemies of liberty; I'm saying that they're not the most
important enemies of liberty.
--
Pete McCutchen
Mark Atwood
> I don't deny that these guys are fruitbats; I just deny that they're
> particularly important fruitbats. I think that, upon inspection, you
> will find that these guys are less influential among mainstream
> Republicans than, say, Noam Chomsky is among mainstream Democrats.
> Despite being about equally looney.
>
> Or consider ANSWER, a front group for the Stalinist pro-North Korea
> Workers' World Party. Quite a few anti-war types are quite taken
> aback when it's suggested that they should perhaps refrain from
> participating in demonstrations organized by these guys. (Including,
> if you recall, Patrick Nielsen-Hayden.)
Maybe that's why the US left is so bugfuck scared of the existance
of the CR frootbats, is that they project their own habits rightward,
and assume that people on the more conservative side of the fence
get in bed with the rightwing frootbats the way progressives get
in bed with theirs.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
m...@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Kristopher
>
> Kristopher wrote:
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/26/iraq.main/index.html
>>
>> BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An influential Shiite cleric in Iraq
>> called Israel's assassination of the spiritual leader of
>> Hamas a "dirty crime against Islam" and the September 11,
>> 2001, terror attacks "a miracle from God."
>>
>> "The religion of peace..."
>
> Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Donald Spitz...
And?
I'm agnostic. I want "under god" removed from the pledge of
allegiance and "in god we trust" removed from US currency.
I want the chaplains thrown out of the state and federal
legislatures. If you'd like me to rant about Christianity,
I can, but it wasn't the target of my post.
Evidently, this "influential Shiite cleric" is saying that
it's OK for Hamas to blow up innocent civilians on buses
and in schools and malls and bars and pizza restaurants,
to send 14 year old boys out as suicide bombers, and push
for the destruction of Israel, but if Israel dares to kill
one of the men most responsible, well, then that's a dirty
crime. Oh, and it's great that about 3000 random innocent
people were snuffed out, too, according to his "influential
Shiite cleric."
--
Kristopher
The question is not "What," or "How," but rather "-Why-?"
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> I don't deny that these guys are fruitbats; I just deny that they're
>> particularly important fruitbats. I think that, upon inspection, you
>> will find that these guys are less influential among mainstream
>> Republicans than, say, Noam Chomsky is among mainstream Democrats.
>> Despite being about equally looney.
>>
>> Or consider ANSWER, a front group for the Stalinist pro-North Korea
>> Workers' World Party. Quite a few anti-war types are quite taken
>> aback when it's suggested that they should perhaps refrain from
>> participating in demonstrations organized by these guys. (Including,
>> if you recall, Patrick Nielsen-Hayden.)
>
>Maybe that's why the US left is so bugfuck scared of the existance
>of the CR frootbats, is that they project their own habits rightward,
>and assume that people on the more conservative side of the fence
>get in bed with the rightwing frootbats the way progressives get
>in bed with theirs.
Yeah, it must just be projection from the crazy lefties. Certainly the
mainstream right would never let anybody with frootbat qualities like, oh,
Pat Buchanan make a big speech at the Republican Convention, nor would
they, y'know, give the founder of the Moral Majority any kind of serious
position.
-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Lis Carey
news:c44ng0$o9h$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>
> In article <k9mb60l6jducjjida...@4ax.com>,
> Danny Low <dann...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:05:40 +0000 (UTC), dasu...@cs.indiana.edu
>>(Damien R. Sullivan) wrote:
>>
>>>With a lot of influence according to the articles. Leadership of the
>>>Southern Baptists, for example. The Rutherford Institute. Lots of
>>>stealth infiltration of the Republicans and such.
>>
>>Their influence has not changed the law of the land.
>
> Oh yes, it has. Idaho was prosecuting pregnant teenagers for
> fornication last I checked, some states keep trying to remove
> evolution from the curriculum, government money goes to "faith based"
> organizations in violation of the first ammendment...
Utah is prosecuting for murder a woman who was pregnant with twins for
refusing to have an immediate C-section when a doctor told her to. She had
a C-section eleven days later at a different hospital; one of the twins was
born dead. The doctor and nurse at the first hospital claim that she
refused the C-section because she didn't want the scar; the prosecuter's
faith in the plausibility of this claim is apparently undiminished by the
fact that the woman had had two previous C-sections, or the fact that she
subsequently did have a C-section in this case, just at a different
hospital with a different doctor.
And no, this hasn't been laughed out of court yet. The theory of this
prosecution reduces women to baby incubators. Anyone want to argue that
this is something other than the influence of the "Christian" raving right
at work?
Paul's right. These people _are_ trying to change the law of the land, and
they _are_ having an impact.
--
Lis Carey
http://www.nesfa.org/reviews/Carey/index.html
mike weber
typed
>And no, this hasn't been laughed out of court yet. The theory of this
>prosecution reduces women to baby incubators. Anyone want to argue that
>this is something other than the influence of the "Christian" raving right
>at work?
The Shrub has promised that he will sign legislation which has paased
the House and the Senate that makes killing an unborn child a crime,
and essentially defines "unborn child" as anything from a fertilised
egg on up.
(story at http://unborn.notlong.com)
--
=============================================================
"They put manure in his well and they made him talk to lawyers!"
-- Cat Ballou
mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com>
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:c45iqe$30a$1...@reader1.panix.com:
> In article <c44pl7$s23$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>
>> While I believe in evolution, millions of Americans don't, and
>> reasonably argue that their tax money should not be used to teach
>> ideas that make their religion out to be lies. (If evolution is true,
>> the Old Testament is obviously false.) I think the only sensible
>> compromise is to use no tax money at all for schools.
>
> Keith, can you name a single country that does not spend any tax money
> for schools, and is *not* a hellhole by American standards?
How much tax money does Monaco spend on schools?
Kristopher
> Utah is prosecuting for murder a woman who was pregnant with
> twins for refusing to have an immediate C-section when a
> doctor told her to. She had a C-section eleven days later at
> a different hospital; one of the twins was born dead. The
> doctor and nurse at the first hospital claim that she
> refused the C-section because she didn't want the scar; the
> prosecuter's faith in the plausibility of this claim is
> apparently undiminished by the fact that the woman had had
> two previous C-sections, or the fact that she subsequently
> did have a C-section in this case, just at a different
> hospital with a different doctor.
>
> And no, this hasn't been laughed out of court yet. The
> theory of this prosecution reduces women to baby incubators.
> Anyone want to argue that this is something other than the
> influence of the "Christian" raving right at work?
>
> Paul's right. These people _are_ trying to change the law of
> the land, and they _are_ having an impact.
CNN article...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/11/mother.charged.ap/
Aaron Denney
> And no, this hasn't been laughed out of court yet. The theory of this
> prosecution reduces women to baby incubators. Anyone want to argue that
> this is something other than the influence of the "Christian" raving right
> at work?
Sure: I'll argue that it's the influence of the Mormon raving right.
(arguments over whether Mormons are Christians aside, it's clearly two
fairly seperate communities)
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
David Friedman
dasu...@cs.indiana.edu (Damien R. Sullivan) wrote:
> These people want suffrage restricted to theologically correct men,
> women in the home, stoning for everything in Leviticus, with a good dollop of
> racism and slavery as well.
>
> I'll grant Islam seems to have a more widespread presence of some level of
> Koranic literalness than Christianity, mostly reflecting recent growth of
> fundamentalism in Islam and secular erosion of Christian literalism in the
> West.
On a small point, since I've been reading up on Islamic law recently.
The penalty of stoning for unlawful intercourse isn't in the Koran--it's
a (slightly later) addition. What is in the Koran is a set of
requirements to prove unlawful intercourse which are almost impossible
to satisfy--except in the case of a woman who is unmarried and pregnant.
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> Oh yes, it has. Idaho was prosecuting pregnant teenagers for fornication
> last I checked, some states keep trying to remove evolution from the
> curriculum, government money goes to "faith based" organizations in
> violation of the first ammendment...
I think your final point is dubious--one can make at least as good an
argument that refusing to deal with "faith based" organizations is in
violation of the First Amendment.
Consider two organizations, one secular, one religious, both doing
things the government wants done and would like to subsidize. If the
government subsidizes the secular one and refuses to subsidize the
religious one, isn't that discrimination against religion?
David Friedman
mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 06:19:48 -0600, Lis Carey <lisc...@comcast.net>
> typed
>
> >And no, this hasn't been laughed out of court yet. The theory of this
> >prosecution reduces women to baby incubators. Anyone want to argue that
> >this is something other than the influence of the "Christian" raving right
> >at work?
>
> The Shrub has promised that he will sign legislation which has paased
> the House and the Senate that makes killing an unborn child a crime,
> and essentially defines "unborn child" as anything from a fertilised
> egg on up.
>
> (story at http://unborn.notlong.com)
And reading the story, it is clear that it does nothing of the sort. The
law in question, like laws in a majority of states, imposes an
additional punishment on someone who commits a violent crime against a
pregnant woman that kills or damages the fetus.
Mark Atwood
>
> Utah is prosecuting for murder a woman who was pregnant with twins for
> refusing to have an immediate C-section when a doctor told her to.
Your summery of that situation is so incomplete that "wrong" would
be a good description of it.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@pobox.com | you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Aaron Denney
> Lis Carey <lisc...@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>> Utah is prosecuting for murder a woman who was pregnant with twins for
>> refusing to have an immediate C-section when a doctor told her to.
>> And no, this hasn't been laughed out of court yet.
>
> Your summery of that situation is so incomplete that "wrong" would
> be a good description of it.
It seems in accord with what I've seen in my news channels. Could you
please elaborate?
Kip Williams
I read that she was not categorically opposed to C-sections, having
already had two, and that she went and got one not long after the one
she didn't want to have, from a different doctor. Sounded more like she
didn't care for the doctor, but that's just my inference.
Danny Low
Ciszek) wrote:
>Oh yes, it has. Idaho was prosecuting pregnant teenagers for fornication
>last I checked, some states keep trying to remove evolution from the
>curriculum, government money goes to "faith based" organizations in
>violation of the first ammendment...
These are rants and not cogent arguments. You are going into the
killfile.
Michael Kube-McDowell
left the following thoughtprints where they could be seen:
> I am a born-again Christian and a science fiction fan.
I've always considered this a puzzling contradiction that must demand some
fundamental compromise of either "born-again Christian" or "science fiction
fan."
I say that because to me the underlying premise that makes science fiction
"work" is that the past didn't have to be the way it was, and the future is
ours to shape.
No Creator with a master plan.
No Rapture waiting on the path ahead.
-Almost- as universal an underlying premise is that human beings are the
products of an unguided evolution (and that if there is life elsewhere in the
Universe, it will be, too).
In other words, I see science fiction as a literature which embodies the
conclusion that the present is the result of the interplay of our technology
(which is ever changing), our choices (which are revokable) and our nature
(which may prove to be malleable)--and that these three forces will also shape
our future. It's on this foundation that the "What if...?", "If only...," and
"If this goes on..." traditions of science fiction storytelling depend.
So I have wondered from time to time just how much "science fiction" a
"born-again Christian" can actually find palatable. In fact, having lived and
taught in a very conservative and very Christian part of the country, I can
report direct observations of active hostility to science fiction--second only
to the hostility toward fantasy. Science fiction books were challenged in our
local libraries (public and school) precisely because they contain ideas which
directly challenge the beliefs of conservative Christians. If there is (or is
to be) a culture war, I see the two on opposite sides.
K-Mac
--
Michael P. Kube-McDowell, author and packrat
SF and other bad habits: http://k-mac.home.att.net
Upcoming: VECTORS, Bantam Spectra, November 2002
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> typed
The story is not complete, then, i guess -- i hunted it up and then
just skimmed it to make sure it was the correct reference -- Neal
Boortz (Atlanta-based/nationally syndicated right-wing talk show host,
who is a staunch supporter of the Shrub's "War on Some Terrorists")
opposes this bill, and he read the text of the section of the bill
that describes what is covered, and it said exactly what i said it
does.
Bernard Peek
<alter...@example.net> writes
>On 27 Mar 2004 21:05:54 GMT, tekt...@aol.comnospam (TekTeam26) carefully
>left the following thoughtprints where they could be seen:
>
>> I am a born-again Christian and a science fiction fan.
>
>I've always considered this a puzzling contradiction that must demand some
>fundamental compromise of either "born-again Christian" or "science fiction
>fan."
>
>I say that because to me the underlying premise that makes science fiction
>"work" is that the past didn't have to be the way it was, and the future is
>ours to shape.
>
>No Creator with a master plan.
That's a false dichotomy. The Christian concept is of a God who gave
mankind free-will. The fact that God knows in advance what each human
decision will be doesn't in any way compromise the human's freedom to
choose.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
In search of cognoscenti
Michael Kube-McDowell
left the following thoughtprints where they could be seen:
>In message <e8I9c.26238$JO3.26564@attbi_s04>, Michael Kube-McDowell
><alter...@example.net> writes
>>On 27 Mar 2004 21:05:54 GMT, tekt...@aol.comnospam (TekTeam26) carefully
>>left the following thoughtprints where they could be seen:
>>
>>> I am a born-again Christian and a science fiction fan.
>>
>>I've always considered this a puzzling contradiction that must demand some
>>fundamental compromise of either "born-again Christian" or "science fiction
>>fan."
>>
>>I say that because to me the underlying premise that makes science fiction
>>"work" is that the past didn't have to be the way it was, and the future is
>>ours to shape.
>>
>>No Creator with a master plan.
>
>That's a false dichotomy. The Christian concept is of a God who gave
>mankind free-will. The fact that God knows in advance what each human
>decision will be doesn't in any way compromise the human's freedom to
>choose.
I was raised Lutheran (and at one point was considering entering the
seminary), attended Catholic high school, and lived and taught in Mennonite
Indiana. Based on those observing opportunities and others, I believe you are
substantially underestimating the contribution "It's God's will" makes to the
way garden-variety Christians approach the world.
(This is apart from any logical or philosophical argument which can be made
against such a hair-splitting definition of "free will.")
TekTeam26
I've always considered this a puzzling contradiction that must demand some
fundamental compromise of either "born-again Christian" or "science fiction
fan."
Actually, not only am I both a born-again Christian and a science fiction fan
but I am married to a Methodist minister who is also a science fiction fan. I
also have quite a few friends at the Baltimore Science Fiction Society who know
me quite well from the time that I was a member there. I have found quite a few
science fiction novels that contain considerable Christian themes in them. One
of the first examples that I came into contact with being Fred Saberhagen's
Berserker. Check out the character of Johann Karlsen.
Do not equate born-again Christian with someone who thinks that the Rapture is
definately going to happen tomorrow. No one knows the time for that according
to Scripture anyway.
I find it extraordinarily fascinating that when people want to bash Christians
that they quote liberally from the Old Testament with all of the graconian
punishments instead of from the New Testament that focuses upon Grace,
forgiveness, showing love to one's neighbor and the Good News of Jesus Christ
and the tremendous gift that he gave to us.
Jerry Hall
Michael Kube-McDowell
left the following thoughtprints where they could be seen:
>> I am a born-again Christian and a science fiction fan.
>
>I've always considered this a puzzling contradiction that must demand some
>fundamental compromise of either "born-again Christian" or "science fiction
>fan."
>
>Actually, not only am I both a born-again Christian and a science fiction fan
>but I am married to a Methodist minister who is also a science fiction fan. I
>also have quite a few friends at the Baltimore Science Fiction Society who know
>me quite well from the time that I was a member there.
It isn't that I don't know that they exist. But I don't see born-again
Christians part of science fiction's natural audience, for the reasons I gave
earlier.
> I have found quite a few
>science fiction novels that contain considerable Christian themes in them. One
>of the first examples that I came into contact with being Fred Saberhagen's
>Berserker. Check out the character of Johann Karlsen.
"Christian themes" is a fuzzy-enough term that a lot of humanist science
fiction might qualify, at least for generic mainstream values of "Christian."
But I'm hard-pressed to think of many "essential SF reading list" novels which
take an affirmative position on key elements of Christian theology and
metaphysics. Even sympathetic portrayals of believers are said to be thin on
the ground, and my own readings don't dispute that.
>Do not equate born-again Christian with someone who thinks that the Rapture is
>definately going to happen tomorrow. No one knows the time for that according
>to Scripture anyway.
I think the meaningful distinction is between people who believe it's going to
happen _at all_, ever, and those who have no need of that hypothesis.
>I find it extraordinarily fascinating that when people want to bash Christians
>that they quote liberally from the Old Testament with all of the graconian
>punishments instead of from the New Testament that focuses upon Grace,
>forgiveness, showing love to one's neighbor and the Good News of Jesus Christ
>and the tremendous gift that he gave to us.
That wasn't me--please watch your attributions more closely.
David Friedman
Michael Kube-McDowell <alter...@example.net> wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2004 21:05:54 GMT, tekt...@aol.comnospam (TekTeam26) carefully
> left the following thoughtprints where they could be seen:
>
> > I am a born-again Christian and a science fiction fan.
>
> I've always considered this a puzzling contradiction that must demand some
> fundamental compromise of either "born-again Christian" or "science fiction
> fan."
>
> I say that because to me the underlying premise that makes science fiction
> "work" is that the past didn't have to be the way it was, and the future is
> ours to shape.
>
> No Creator with a master plan.
>
> No Rapture waiting on the path ahead.
I'm not a Christian, but I don't see why a Christian couldn't accept the
relevant parts of that. Even if there is a creator with a master plan,
we don't know what it is. And the creator could have chosen to create us
differently and create a different past. After all, from the standpoint
of non-Christians, the past is nailed down too--it has already happened.
Once you are willing to go to "might have beens," they are no easier for
us than for the Christian.
> -Almost- as universal an underlying premise is that human beings are the
> products of an unguided evolution (and that if there is life elsewhere in the
> Universe, it will be, too).
There have been sf stories where our evolution was guided by
aliens--consider, for a small example, the Puppeteers breeding humans
for luck. I would have thought that, for most sf stories, whether humans
are the product of Darwinian evolution or divine plan isn't very
important.
> In other words, I see science fiction as a literature which embodies the
> conclusion that the present is the result of the interplay of our technology
> (which is ever changing), our choices (which are revokable) and our nature
> (which may prove to be malleable)--and that these three forces will also shape
> our future. It's on this foundation that the "What if...?", "If only...," and
> "If this goes on..." traditions of science fiction storytelling depend.
All of that is consistent with a Christian position. It's just that, for
the Christian, our "nature" is given us by God, who may also from time
to time act as an additional causal element. There is lots of sf where
some outside element--an alien invasion, say--plays a large role.
Damien R. Sullivan
>I find it extraordinarily fascinating that when people want to bash Christians
>that they quote liberally from the Old Testament with all of the graconian
>punishments instead of from the New Testament that focuses upon Grace,
>forgiveness, showing love to one's neighbor and the Good News of Jesus Christ
>and the tremendous gift that he gave to us.
Actually, if I feel inclined to bash Christians, it'd be for not living up to
the showing love to one's neighbor bit. Also the camel/eye of needle part.
Lots of "Christian" politicians are fair game for this.
OTOH, the Christian Reconstructionists invite attack on Old Testament grounds
because they say they want to enforce the Old Testament. And in general when
you do find Christians invoking Leviticus against gay marriage or whatnot it
seems fair to hold that against them.
But in general I'd go for the "so, it'd be nice if you self-style Christians
appeared to even try to follow Christ, as opposed to Paul..."
-xx- Damien X-)
Mark Atwood
>
> I'm not a Christian, but I don't see why a Christian couldn't accept the
> relevant parts of that. Even if there is a creator with a master plan,
> we don't know what it is.
ObSF: _Good Omens_
"It's the Plan!"
"But, is it the Ineffable Plan?"
"Ummm...."
Kristopher
> Michael Kube-McDowell writes:
>> TekTeam26 wrote:
>>
>>> I am a born-again Christian and a science fiction fan.
>>
>> I've always considered this a puzzling contradiction that
>> must demand some fundamental compromise of either
>> "born-again Christian" or "science fiction fan."
>>
>> I say that because to me the underlying premise that makes
>> science fiction "work" is that the past didn't have to be
>> the way it was, and the future is ours to shape.
>>
>> No Creator with a master plan.
>
> That's a false dichotomy. The Christian concept is of a God
> who gave mankind free-will. The fact that God knows in
> advance what each human decision will be doesn't in any way
> compromise the human's freedom to choose.
If the future is known with complete certainty, then the
freedom to chose is non-existent. The two are exclusive.
David Goldfarb
Kristopher <eosl...@net-link.net> wrote:
>If the future is known with complete certainty, then the
>freedom to chose is non-existent. The two are exclusive.
I am compelled to agree.
--
David Goldfarb |
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | Horace Gerstenblut n'existe pas.
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |
Marilee J. Layman
<kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:01:40 GMT, David Friedman
><dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> typed
>
>>In article <jmrd60hnq9r33sgib...@4ax.com>,
>> mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>> The Shrub has promised that he will sign legislation which has paased
>>> the House and the Senate that makes killing an unborn child a crime,
>>> and essentially defines "unborn child" as anything from a fertilised
>>> egg on up.
>>>
>>> (story at http://unborn.notlong.com)
>>
>>And reading the story, it is clear that it does nothing of the sort. The
>>law in question, like laws in a majority of states, imposes an
>>additional punishment on someone who commits a violent crime against a
>>pregnant woman that kills or damages the fetus.
>
>The story is not complete, then, i guess -- i hunted it up and then
>just skimmed it to make sure it was the correct reference -- Neal
>Boortz (Atlanta-based/nationally syndicated right-wing talk show host,
>who is a staunch supporter of the Shrub's "War on Some Terrorists")
>opposes this bill, and he read the text of the section of the bill
>that describes what is covered, and it said exactly what i said it
>does.
The abortion-rights people say this is close to defining "human" as
from conception, and I agree the law is doing that. Otherwise, why
pass it?
--
Marilee J. Layman
Marilee J. Layman
<alter...@example.net> wrote:
>In fact, having lived and
>taught in a very conservative and very Christian part of the country, I can
>report direct observations of active hostility to science fiction--second only
>to the hostility toward fantasy.
In today's Marilyn vos Savant column in Parade magazine, someone asks
her if her folks encouraged her to read, particularly science fiction,
and what her study timetable was. She answers that they wanted her to
work on her own and homework was always her job. "One exception: My
parents strongly encouraged reading, but not science fiction, which
both thought would be harmful. My own favorite? Mysteries!"
So clearly she *can't* have the Highest IQ in the world.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Pete McCutchen
>And no, this hasn't been laughed out of court yet. The theory of this
>prosecution reduces women to baby incubators. Anyone want to argue that
>this is something other than the influence of the "Christian" raving right
>at work?
I don't agree with the Utah prosecution, and I doubt that this
particular woman will actually end up serving any time.
However, the original topic was the importance of the "Christian
Reconstructionist" movement. While the CRs are certainly
anti-abortion, the anti-abortion movement extends beyond them, and
includes far more people. Which is why they have more success than,
say, those who try to impose stoning as a punishment for incorrigible
children.
Nor do I think that your characterization of the pro-life position is
a fair one, even though I actually agree with you on this particular
policy matter.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:01:40 GMT, David Friedman
><dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> typed
>
>>In article <jmrd60hnq9r33sgib...@4ax.com>,
>> mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>> The Shrub has promised that he will sign legislation which has paased
>>> the House and the Senate that makes killing an unborn child a crime,
>>> and essentially defines "unborn child" as anything from a fertilised
>>> egg on up.
>>>
>>> (story at http://unborn.notlong.com)
>>
>>And reading the story, it is clear that it does nothing of the sort. The
>>law in question, like laws in a majority of states, imposes an
>>additional punishment on someone who commits a violent crime against a
>>pregnant woman that kills or damages the fetus.
>
>The story is not complete, then, i guess -- i hunted it up and then
>just skimmed it to make sure it was the correct reference -- Neal
>Boortz (Atlanta-based/nationally syndicated right-wing talk show host,
>who is a staunch supporter of the Shrub's "War on Some Terrorists")
>opposes this bill, and he read the text of the section of the bill
>that describes what is covered, and it said exactly what i said it
>does.
Perhaps Mr. Boortz misunderstood the legislation, or perhaps you
misunderstood his discussion of it. It may be that certain portions
of the definition section do indeed define an "unborn child" as
anything from a fetus on up. However, as the article you cited makes
clear, the legislation that definition only comes into play if an
individual commits a crime against the mother which results in death
or injury to the unborn child.
This may or may not be wise legislation, but it's not a backdoor
attempt to ban abortion. Abortion wouldn't count, because performing
a consensual abortion isn't a crime. If somebody kidnapped a woman,
took her across state lines, and then tied her down and performed the
abortion, well, then it would be a crime. But that's strikes me as a
reasonable outcome.
I certainly think that punching a pregnant woman in the stomach is
worse than punching a strapping young person in the stomach. (My
intuition is that it's worse to hit a woman than to hit a man, but I
chalk that up to my upbringing.) It's not totally unreasonable that
assaults on pregnant women which result in injury or death to the
unborn entity ought to merit additional punishment. Pro-choice people
ought to favor the law. After all, most pro-choice people don't claim
to hate fetuses; they claim that a woman ought to be able to decide.
Well, if the woman is attacked physically, and a miscarriage results,
her right to choose has been interfered with. Assuming she's chosen
to carry the baby to term, she's suffered an injury over and above any
other damage to her in the assault. Why not impose additional
punishment?
--
Pete McCutchen
Mark Atwood
> unborn entity ought to merit additional punishment. Pro-choice people
> ought to favor the law. After all, most pro-choice people don't claim
> to hate fetuses; they claim that a woman ought to be able to decide.
> Well, if the woman is attacked physically, and a miscarriage results,
> her right to choose has been interfered with.
Well, entirely too many people in the "pro-choice" camp are not
actually in favor of the "right to choose".
I call myself "pro-abortion" to distance myself from them, even tho,
in my opinion of my observations, I am far more actually in favor of
actually *choosing*, either way, than the average attendee of a NARAL
gathering.
I've been to a NARAL fundraiser, and it and they pissed me off so
much, I was really seriously tempted to send some money to Operation
Rescue.
Lis Carey
news:ddfr-E7AF8B.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net:
Uh, no, David. "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act", a.k.a. "Laci and
Connor's Law" does define the "unborn child" as anything from conception to
birth, and makes that unborn child a separate victim with separate rights.
A Democratic amendment to make injury to the fetus an additional crime
_against the woman_ was specifically rejected by the Republican majority.
When the Republicans say that there are "similar" laws on the books, they
are not stating the facts with complete accuracy, to put it kindly. Notice
that, in that same story, Rick Santorum is quoted as saying that the issue
is "Do we recognize the humanity of the child?" That AFP story on Yahoo
certainly makes statements that obscure that point but, had you been
following the news, you'd be aware of these facts, which have been
adequately covered in the news media.
It should be noted, which the story also does not (this is just a really
poorly written story on the law), that the law in its current form exempts
an abortion performed at the request of the mother or by persons authorized
to make medical decisions for her. However, there are some differences
between the House and Senate versions, so it has to go to conference
committee, and if the Republicans effectively exclude the Democrats from
the decision-making process in conference, and something rather different
consequently emerges from conference, well, that would be consistent with
what they've done in the recent past on other controversial bills.
Meanwhile, Ashcroft has lost another round in the courts in another of his
efforts to chill or eliminate abortion rights, but he hasn't quit:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/27/abortion.ruling.ap/index.html
First couple of paragraphs:
Court blocks abortion records request
Saturday, March 27, 2004 Posted: 8:49 AM EST (1349 GMT)
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- A federal appeals court Friday upheld a lower
court decision that blocks the government from obtaining abortion records
from a Chicago hospital.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that while the administrative
cost to Northwestern Memorial Hospital to produce the approximate 45
records would be modest, the hospital would pay a high cost in the long run
by losing the trust of its patients.
--
Lis Carey
http://www.nesfa.org/reviews/Carey/index.html
Lis Carey
news:2kpe601inroaopal5...@4ax.com:
Because, obviously, a Yahoo/AFP story that gives a very brief and general
description, with no detail, is a more reliable source for what the bill
actually says than the actual text of the legislation involved, or more
detailed discussions elsewhere.
> This may or may not be wise legislation, but it's not a backdoor
> attempt to ban abortion. Abortion wouldn't count, because performing
> a consensual abortion isn't a crime. If somebody kidnapped a woman,
> took her across state lines, and then tied her down and performed the
> abortion, well, then it would be a crime. But that's strikes me as a
> reasonable outcome.
Another indication that the Yahoo story is just a bad, unreliable story:
The legislation actually specifically exempts an abortion performed at the
request of the mother or persons authorized to make medical decisions for
her, but the story doesn't mention that, either.
> I certainly think that punching a pregnant woman in the stomach is
> worse than punching a strapping young person in the stomach. (My
> intuition is that it's worse to hit a woman than to hit a man, but I
> chalk that up to my upbringing.) It's not totally unreasonable that
> assaults on pregnant women which result in injury or death to the
> unborn entity ought to merit additional punishment. Pro-choice people
> ought to favor the law. After all, most pro-choice people don't claim
> to hate fetuses; they claim that a woman ought to be able to decide.
> Well, if the woman is attacked physically, and a miscarriage results,
> her right to choose has been interfered with. Assuming she's chosen
> to carry the baby to term, she's suffered an injury over and above any
> other damage to her in the assault. Why not impose additional
> punishment?
Pro-choice people in the House and Senate proposed amendments that would
make injury to the unborn child an additional crime against the child, but
the Republicans insisted on language that makes the unborn child a
_separate victim_.
Lis Carey
link.net:
> Lis Carey wrote:
>
>> Utah is prosecuting for murder a woman who was pregnant with
>> twins for refusing to have an immediate C-section when a
>> doctor told her to. She had a C-section eleven days later at
>> a different hospital; one of the twins was born dead. The
>> doctor and nurse at the first hospital claim that she
>> refused the C-section because she didn't want the scar; the
>> prosecuter's faith in the plausibility of this claim is
>> apparently undiminished by the fact that the woman had had
>> two previous C-sections, or the fact that she subsequently
>> did have a C-section in this case, just at a different
>> hospital with a different doctor.
>>
>> And no, this hasn't been laughed out of court yet. The
>> theory of this prosecution reduces women to baby incubators.
>> Anyone want to argue that this is something other than the
>> influence of the "Christian" raving right at work?
>>
>> Paul's right. These people _are_ trying to change the law of
>> the land, and they _are_ having an impact.
>
> CNN article...
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/11/mother.charged.ap/
>
Thank you. I intended to include a cite, and then realized I hadn't after I
had hit send.
Lis Carey
news:m28yhkh...@amsu.blackfedora.com:
> Lis Carey <lisc...@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>> Utah is prosecuting for murder a woman who was pregnant with twins for
>> refusing to have an immediate C-section when a doctor told her to.
>> And no, this hasn't been laughed out of court yet.
>
> Your summery of that situation is so incomplete that "wrong" would
> be a good description of it.
>
Kristopher posted a url (which I omitted through carelessness) in response
to my original post on the subject.
Kip Williams
> In article <4067C114...@net-link.net>,
> Kristopher <eosl...@net-link.net> wrote:
>
>>If the future is known with complete certainty, then the
>>freedom to chose is non-existent. The two are exclusive.
>
> I am compelled to agree.
As was predicted.
"Lo, shall it not then be
That on some day that witnesseth
One who shall eke not tacitlee
But in diddy wah diddynisseth."
All right there, in black and white.
Lis Carey
news:_hJ9c.26125$w54.170133@attbi_s01:
If you attended Catholic high school, then presumably you recall being
taught evolution in school, out of Church-approved textbooks. If you
weren't attending the religion classes, you may have missed the heavy
emphasis on personal responsibility.
Although, as I recall, discussions with the nuns about Lewis's Space
Trilogy and Blish's _A Case of Conscience_ were optional.
Catholics aren't Mennonites, K-Mac. Or fundamentalist evangelicals, either.
In fact, the fundamentalis evangelicals don't think we're Christians, in
part because we _don't believe in predestination_.
Michael Kube-McDowell
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> carefully left the following thoughtprints
where they could be seen:
>In article <e8I9c.26238$JO3.26564@attbi_s04>,
> Michael Kube-McDowell <alter...@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On 27 Mar 2004 21:05:54 GMT, tekt...@aol.comnospam (TekTeam26) carefully
>> left the following thoughtprints where they could be seen:
>>
>> > I am a born-again Christian and a science fiction fan.
>>
>> I've always considered this a puzzling contradiction that must demand some
>> fundamental compromise of either "born-again Christian" or "science fiction
>> fan."
>>
>> I say that because to me the underlying premise that makes science fiction
>> "work" is that the past didn't have to be the way it was, and the future is
>> ours to shape.
>>
>> No Creator with a master plan.
>>
>> No Rapture waiting on the path ahead.
>
>I'm not a Christian, but I don't see why a Christian couldn't accept the
>relevant parts of that. Even if there is a creator with a master plan,
>we don't know what it is. And the creator could have chosen to create us
>differently and create a different past. After all, from the standpoint
>of non-Christians, the past is nailed down too--it has already happened.
>Once you are willing to go to "might have beens," they are no easier for
>us than for the Christian.
The reason seems to be that if you plug born-again Christian values into that
equation, you end up in a very different place. The science fiction future has
been, by and large, a secular humanist future (and I suspect that most of the
exceptions treat devout theistic belief as a bug rather than a feature--belief
in gods being viewed as a hangover from humanity's pre-scientific mysticism,
something to grow out of). It's almost by definition a future in which
humanity looks to science and technology for answers, and in which invoking
divine will or intervention violates all the rules. (Imagine "On the Beach" or
"The Cold Equations" or "Childhood's End" or even "Footfall" with the
Christian God either altering or dictating the course of events. Imagine
Captain Kirk responding in a desperate moment by calling on the entire crew to
pray together.)
>> -Almost- as universal an underlying premise is that human beings are the
>> products of an unguided evolution (and that if there is life elsewhere in the
>> Universe, it will be, too).
>
>There have been sf stories where our evolution was guided by
>aliens--consider, for a small example, the Puppeteers breeding humans
>for luck. I would have thought that, for most sf stories, whether humans
>are the product of Darwinian evolution or divine plan isn't very
>important.
Stories of aliens meddling with the course of human evolution play two of the
underlying assumptions of SF off against each other--the probability of
intelligent life elsewhere, and the fact of biological evolution. Both
assumptions are going to croggle a lot of born-again Christians.
>> In other words, I see science fiction as a literature which embodies the
>> conclusion that the present is the result of the interplay of our technology
>> (which is ever changing), our choices (which are revokable) and our nature
>> (which may prove to be malleable)--and that these three forces will also shape
>> our future. It's on this foundation that the "What if...?", "If only...," and
>> "If this goes on..." traditions of science fiction storytelling depend.
>
>All of that is consistent with a Christian position. It's just that, for
>the Christian, our "nature" is given us by God, who may also from time
>to time act as an additional causal element. There is lots of sf where
>some outside element--an alien invasion, say--plays a large role.
Only superficially consistent, as discussed above--you end up in a distinctly
different metaphysical reality.
An alien invasion is hardly "outside" the parameters of a body of literature
which has emphatically embraced interstellar travel and a universe rich in
inhabited planets. The question of first contact--what form it will take, what
consequences it will have--has been visited again and again, and yielded many
classics of the genre.
But the Biblical God as a causal agent--that's -way- outside the parameters.
The body of SF is largely agnostic--at best, it takes the position Laplace
took with Napoleon ("I have no need of that hypothesis"). Some of it goes
further, into active hostility to religion as a stubborn and frequently
dangerous superstition hindering human progress.
It isn't an absolute divide--for instance, R.A. Lafferty's work is shot
through with his Catholicism. But Lafferty is also pretty fringy SF.
Are fans of Heinlein and Clarke, of Asimov and Cherryh and Dickson and
McCaffrey, reading LaHaye's LEFT BEHIND series? Are born-again Christians
reading Silverberg's "Pope of the Chimps"? I have my doubts.
Aaron Denney
> But the Biblical God as a causal agent--that's -way- outside the parameters.
Del Rey's "For We are a Jealous People"
> It isn't an absolute divide--for instance, R.A. Lafferty's work is shot
> through with his Catholicism. But Lafferty is also pretty fringy SF.
Lewis's _Perelandra_, et al.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Michael Kube-McDowell
BSCS Yellow, perhaps the finest high school science text ever. And the nun who
taught biology was quite taken with the writings of Teilhard de Chardin.
(Perhaps this contributed to her decision, a few years later, to renounce her
vocation and leave the Church.)
> If you
>weren't attending the religion classes, you may have missed the heavy
>emphasis on personal responsibility.
I got straight A's in four years of theology class. The first two involved a
lot of parroting of the contents of a series of saddle-bound booklets whose
series title I can no longer remember, but the last two years, which involved
crossing logical and philosophical swords with a very sharp Jesuit priest,
were delightful.
Unlike American Protestantism, Catholicism has a respectable tradition of
scholarship and inquiry, and the contemporary Church's position on a number of
scientific questions (including evolution) is commendable. They have really
gone about as far as they possibly can to harmonize faith and modern science.
>Although, as I recall, discussions with the nuns about Lewis's Space
>Trilogy and Blish's _A Case of Conscience_ were optional.
>
>Catholics aren't Mennonites, K-Mac. Or fundamentalist evangelicals, either.
Honestly, I have little trouble keeping that straight.
>In fact, the fundamentalis evangelicals don't think we're Christians, in
>part because we _don't believe in predestination_.
Well, yes and no. It's a complex question. Certainly there's no problem
distinguishing between Calvinism and Catholicism on this point, but Ludwig Ott
in FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA identifies both of the following statements
as _De fide_ dogmas of the faith:
God, by His eternal resolve of will, has predetermined certain men to eternal
blessedness.
and
God, by an eternal resolve of His will, predestines certain men, on account of
their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.
There are fine points under each of those which are debated by various schools
of theological thought--the Thomists, Augustinians, Scotists, Molinists, etc.
And when we throw in the allied concept of divine providence
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm), things can get -really-
complicated. More complicated than I'm prepared to tackle at this point,
anyway.
Damien R. Sullivan
>I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why, if one's salvation or
>lack thereof is predestined, one should not party one's ass off while
>one has the chance. Especially if you can't have sex in heaven.
The impression I got from AP European History discussion of Calvinism was that
while the Elect were pre-chosen, obviously no one could know whom God had
chosen. Living in godly behavior is a prerequisite, and a sign that you might
be chosen; willingness to party one's ass off is a clear sign of damnation.
So you live godly, and hope, and put down those around you because the fewer
real godly people around the better your own chances, although this last bit
is my own gloss, not from class.
Take with salt.
-xx- Damien X-)
Kristopher
> David Friedman
>> I'm not a Christian, but I don't see why a Christian couldn't
>> accept the relevant parts of that. Even if there is a creator
>> with a master plan, we don't know what it is. And the creator
>> could have chosen to create us differently and create a
>> different past. After all, from the standpoint of
>> non-Christians, the past is nailed down too--it has already
>> happened. Once you are willing to go to "might have beens,"
>> they are no easier for us than for the Christian.
>
> The reason seems to be that if you plug born-again Christian
> values into that equation, you end up in a very different
> place. The science fiction future has been, by and large, a
> secular humanist future (and I suspect that most of the
> exceptions treat devout theistic belief as a bug rather than
> a feature--belief in gods being viewed as a hangover from
> humanity's pre-scientific mysticism, something to grow out
> of). It's almost by definition a future in which humanity
> looks to science and technology for answers, and in which
> invoking divine will or intervention violates all the rules.
> (Imagine "On the Beach" or "The Cold Equations" or
> "Childhood's End" or even "Footfall" with the Christian God
> either altering or dictating the course of events. Imagine
> Captain Kirk responding in a desperate moment by calling on
> the entire crew to pray together.)
While the religion involved is not exactly any particular
real religion, religion does play a large role in the
worldbuilding for the _Dune_ series.
David G. Bell
alter...@example.net "Michael Kube-McDowell" wrote:
> I got straight A's in four years of theology class. The first two involved a
> lot of parroting of the contents of a series of saddle-bound booklets whose
> series title I can no longer remember, but the last two years, which involved
> crossing logical and philosophical swords with a very sharp Jesuit priest,
> were delightful.
I can see how the first two years set the foundation of the second two,
in terms of sorting out what the language of the debate meant.
> Unlike American Protestantism, Catholicism has a respectable tradition of
> scholarship and inquiry, and the contemporary Church's position on a number of
> scientific questions (including evolution) is commendable. They have really
> gone about as far as they possibly can to harmonize faith and modern science.
There's a lot of school-history about the Catholic Church which is
Protestant Propaganda, especially where science is involved -- check the
story about the Church telling Columbus that the world was flat. That
doesn't mean that the Church did not use their political power to oppose
new theories, but there are very strong arguments that without the
Catholic Church we wouldn't have Science.
Though such arguments may well be ignoring the scholastic history of
Medieval Islam. I think there is scope for an alternate history with a
world dominated by Islam, with Christian Europe as the home of the
religious loonies, who blacken the name of their culture.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
David G. Bell
alter...@example.net "Michael Kube-McDowell" wrote:
> Well, yes and no. It's a complex question. Certainly there's no problem
> distinguishing between Calvinism and Catholicism on this point, but Ludwig Ott
> in FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA identifies both of the following statements
> as _De fide_ dogmas of the faith:
>
> God, by His eternal resolve of will, has predetermined certain men to eternal
> blessedness.
>
> and
>
> God, by an eternal resolve of His will, predestines certain men, on account of
> their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.
>
> There are fine points under each of those which are debated by various schools
> of theological thought--the Thomists, Augustinians, Scotists, Molinists, etc.
> And when we throw in the allied concept of divine providence
> (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm), things can get -really-
> complicated. More complicated than I'm prepared to tackle at this point,
> anyway.
Nevertheless, this rough and untutored pleb would be fascinated to hear
your take on this subject.
Karl Johanson
news:HoW9c.123775$_w.1556728@attbi_s53...
Some classic Trek had some irrelevant Christianity tacked on. The Roman
Empire episode "Bread and Circuses" ended with a mention that some of the
slaves weren't worshiping 'the sun' but rather 'the son of god'.
(Fascinating that the 'universal translator' doesn't distinguish between
homonyms for the listener.) In general, though, classic Trek made the point
that what some might consider gods, may just be more powerful beings, some
of whom are jerks.
> >> -Almost- as universal an underlying premise is that human beings are
the
> >> products of an unguided evolution (and that if there is life elsewhere
in the
> >> Universe, it will be, too).
> >
> >There have been sf stories where our evolution was guided by
> >aliens--consider, for a small example, the Puppeteers breeding humans
> >for luck. I would have thought that, for most sf stories, whether humans
> >are the product of Darwinian evolution or divine plan isn't very
> >important.
>
> Stories of aliens meddling with the course of human evolution play two of
the
> underlying assumptions of SF off against each other--the probability of
> intelligent life elsewhere, and the fact of biological evolution. Both
> assumptions are going to croggle a lot of born-again Christians.
I wondered at the lack of protests against Dr. Seuss for his suggesting that
Christ went to planets other than Earth. The Who's planet was on a dust spec
(as established in "Horton Hears a Who") and the Who's celebrated Christmas
(as established in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas").
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
news:406853AA.416FB2B@net-
> While the religion involved is not exactly any particular
> real religion, religion does play a large role in the
> worldbuilding for the _Dune_ series.
Judaism is mentioned in one of the later books. There's several references
to the 'Orange Catholic Bible' in many parts of the series. Many of the
religions are, as you say, not real world ones, as the Bene Geserrit created
or modified them.
Karl Johanson
TekTeam26
>McCaffrey, reading LaHaye's LEFT BEHIND series? Are born-again Christians
>reading Silverberg's "Pope of the Chimps"? I have my doubts.
Actually, K-Mac. My wife, the Methodist minister, is a very big Heinlein fan
and has a large collection of his works. She has often commented about the
positive themes in his stories as well. She also has two Master's degrees, has
studied for two years at Oxford-Brookes University towards her PhD and is
concurrently working on her Doctorate in Ministry as well. Both her and I tend
to look at the whole argument without the sense of tunnel vision that so many
people on both sides of the argument tend to have.
Jerry Hall
Will McLean
"If it's a particle, it can't be a wave"
I should also point out that the whole time-travel sub-genre can be
played in a number of ways, and one of them is that the past, once
viewed from the future, is fixed and immutable.
And as I understand it, "born-again Christian" doesn't necessarily
mean Biblical Literalist, although there's a lot of overlap.
Will McLean
Bernard Peek
<eosl...@net-link.net> writes
No, there's no conflict. The decision-maker has made a free choice. The
fact that someone has observed it doesn't make the choice any less free.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
In search of cognoscenti
David Friedman
Michael Kube-McDowell <alter...@example.net> wrote:
> >I'm not a Christian, but I don't see why a Christian couldn't accept the
> >relevant parts of that. Even if there is a creator with a master plan,
> >we don't know what it is. And the creator could have chosen to create us
> >differently and create a different past. After all, from the standpoint
> >of non-Christians, the past is nailed down too--it has already happened.
> >Once you are willing to go to "might have beens," they are no easier for
> >us than for the Christian.
> The reason seems to be that if you plug born-again Christian values into that
> equation, you end up in a very different place. The science fiction future
> has
> been, by and large, a secular humanist future (and I suspect that most of the
> exceptions treat devout theistic belief as a bug rather than a
> feature--belief
> in gods being viewed as a hangover from humanity's pre-scientific mysticism,
> something to grow out of).
I agree that lots of sf has been written by people with views
inconsistent with various forms of Christianity--but I don't think that
has anything much to do with the nature of sf. Some sf has been written
by people who were strongly convinced Christians--and I don't think that
has much to do with the nature of sf either.
> It's almost by definition a future in which
> humanity looks to science and technology for answers,
I don't see that at all. In some sf science and technology provide
answers, in some they provide problems, in some they merely provide the
background for human problems. And a believing Christian can look to
science and technology for the answers to some questions--most of them,
when they want to go to Europe, do it by buying an airline ticket, not
praying for a miracle.
> and in which invoking
> divine will or intervention violates all the rules. (Imagine "On the Beach"
> or
> "The Cold Equations" or "Childhood's End" or even "Footfall" with the
> Christian God either altering or dictating the course of events. Imagine
> Captain Kirk responding in a desperate moment by calling on the entire crew
> to pray together.)
A Christian doesn't have to assume that other people are Christians, so
he doesn't have to assume that they will try to solve problems by
prayers. And he doesn't have to assume that direct divine intervention
is a routine option. "God helps those who help themselves" is consistent
with a Christian view of the world.
...
> >There have been sf stories where our evolution was guided by
> >aliens--consider, for a small example, the Puppeteers breeding humans
> >for luck. I would have thought that, for most sf stories, whether humans
> >are the product of Darwinian evolution or divine plan isn't very
> >important.
>
> Stories of aliens meddling with the course of human evolution play two of the
> underlying assumptions of SF off against each other--the probability of
> intelligent life elsewhere, and the fact of biological evolution. Both
> assumptions are going to croggle a lot of born-again Christians.
I don't see any reason why the possibility of other intelligent life
should be a problem--it wasn't for Lewis, or Tokien, or various other
Christian writers. Indeed, Christian fundamentalists have to believe in
some other forms of intelligent life--most obviously angels. And even
someone who doesn't believe we are the product of Darwinian evolution
can still believe in selective breeding--after all, humans have been
breeding plants and animals for a very long time.
..
> But the Biblical God as a causal agent--that's -way- outside the parameters.
> The body of SF is largely agnostic--at best, it takes the position Laplace
> took with Napoleon ("I have no need of that hypothesis"). Some of it goes
> further, into active hostility to religion as a stubborn and frequently
> dangerous superstition hindering human progress.
That's a statement about the beliefs of lots of sf authors, not about
the nature of the field.
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
Michael Kube-McDowell
left the following thoughtprints where they could be seen:
>In message <4067C114...@net-link.net>, Kristopher
><eosl...@net-link.net> writes
>>
>>If the future is known with complete certainty, then the
>>freedom to chose is non-existent. The two are exclusive.
>
>No, there's no conflict. The decision-maker has made a free choice. The
>fact that someone has observed it doesn't make the choice any less free.
What, no observer effect?
Michael Kube-McDowell
left the following thoughtprints where they could be seen:
>>Are fans of Heinlein and Clarke, of Asimov and Cherryh and Dickson and
How did she like JOB?
Karl Johanson
news:20040328200432...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> > I am a born-again Christian and a science fiction fan.
>
> I've always considered this a puzzling contradiction that must demand some
> fundamental compromise of either "born-again Christian" or "science
fiction
> fan."
>
fan
> but I am married to a Methodist minister who is also a science fiction
fan. I
> also have quite a few friends at the Baltimore Science Fiction Society who
know
> me quite well from the time that I was a member there. I have found quite
a few
> science fiction novels that contain considerable Christian themes in them.
I recommend "The Star" by Arthur C Clarke.
>One
> of the first examples that I came into contact with being Fred
Saberhagen's
> Berserker. Check out the character of Johann Karlsen.
Someone once referred to that characters name as a 'pseduo-spoonerism' of
mine (Karl Johanson). I wondered if there's a more apt term than spoonerism.
> Do not equate born-again Christian with someone who thinks that the
Rapture is
> definately going to happen tomorrow. No one knows the time for that
according
> to Scripture anyway.
The exact time is listed as unknown, but it said to be before the generation
alive when Christ spoke dies. Mark 13: 30. According to the book, the second
coming was 2 days or so after Christ died on the cross, which fits in fine
with the 'within one generation' thing..
> I find it extraordinarily fascinating that when people want to bash
Christians
> that they quote liberally from the Old Testament with all of the graconian
> punishments
The laws in the 'Old Testament', are allegedly endorsed by Jesus in the New
Testament; even the draconian ones.
>instead of from the New Testament that focuses upon Grace,
> forgiveness, showing love to one's neighbor and the
You must have skimmed over all of the smiteage.
There doesn't seem to be anything about burning for all eternity in the 'Old
Testament', but there is in the 'New Testament'. Nothing 'loving', or
'forgiving' about infinite punishment.
How about some other bits from the 'New Testament'?
-Death penalty for cursing ones parents. (Which is ironic, as you have to
have 'I hate my mother & father'* on your resume, if you want to be a
disciple.)
*(You have to hate your brothers & sisters and your own life as well)'
-Heaven is the kingdom of the poor.
-Those who laugh in this life are rewarded with sorrow.
-Those with full bellies in this life are rewarded with hunger.
-Stay away from unbelievers.
-Slaves (or servants 'owned' by someone) should obey their masters.
-Women can't teach or exercise authority over a man.
-Obey the leaders of your country and all the people who work for them.
-Christ whipping people for trading coins, so donations can be made with
coins which didn't acknowledge Caesar as god.
> Good News of Jesus Christ and the tremendous gift that he gave to us.
What gift? Absolving us of the 'sin' of eating fruit of the tree of
knowledge of good & evil? A sin allegedly committed by two people, thousands
of years ago? I didn't do it. I don't need the 'gift' of being absolved of
having done it.
Karl Johanson
2 Chronicles 21:
"14 Behold, with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people, and thy
children, and thy wives, and all thy goods:
15 And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy
bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day."
Keith F. Lynch
> If somebody kidnapped a woman, took her across state lines, and then
> tied her down and performed the abortion, well, then it would be a
> crime. But that's strikes me as a reasonable outcome.
This wasn't *already* against the law? I find that hard to believe.
If it was already illegal, why is a new law needed?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
> If the future is known with complete certainty, then the freedom to
> chose is non-existent. The two are exclusive.
David Goldfarb <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> I am compelled to agree.
I am free to disagree. I am also compelled to disagree. This is not
a contradiction.
Free is the opposite of coerced, not of determined. Determined is
the opposite of random, not of free. I have free will. A being with
sufficient knowledge of my brain state could predict my future actions
under any given circumstances, since my brain is, after all, made of
matter, which works according to strictly deterministic laws.
The cause of my actions is my choices. But what are the causes of
my choices? The cause of my typing this message is my free choice to
type this message. But what is the cause of my choosing to choose to
type this message? Did I choose to choose? And if so, did I first
choose to choose to choose? And before that, did I choose to choose
to choose to choose? Is it turtles all the way down? Of course not.
The cause of my choices is brain chemistry. The cause of my brain
chemistry is physics. The cause of physics is mathematics. And
mathematics isn't caused, it just is, since it would contradictory
for it not to be, or for it to be different.
For the sake of argument, I'm ignoring possible quantum randomness.
Even if that is truly random, it's not clear that that contributes in
any important way to brain functioning. And even if it does, pure
randomness has nothing whatsoever to do with free will.
I'm also ignoring chaos theory, which says that it may become
arbitrarily difficult to predict the future of a system, as tiny
differences in initial conditions grow exponentially with time. This
is little hindrance to a sufficiently clever being, such as God is
supposed to be.
I don't believe in God, or in any other being clever enough to predict
all my future actions. But there's nothing logically contradictory
about such a being. Or about such people having free will despite the
existence of such a being. I only wish it were that easy to debunk God.
If it's true that God, Heaven, and Hell exist, and that everyone goes
to Heaven or Hell, and that God is omniscient and always has been,
then He already knows which place you're going, and knew it before
your grandparents were born. It doesn't follow from that that it
doesn't matter what you do, since you actions are (assuming standard
theology) the cause of where you're going. Yes, cause precedes
effect, but knowledge of both might precede both.
(I'm ignoring the possibility that Multiple Worlds is true, in which
case maybe everyone goes to both places in different timelines.)
Richard Horton
Ciszek) wrote:
>
>In article <ag0ac.43836$R27.20569@pd7tw2no>,
>Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>I wondered at the lack of protests against Dr. Seuss for his suggesting that
>>Christ went to planets other than Earth. The Who's planet was on a dust spec
>>(as established in "Horton Hears a Who") and the Who's celebrated Christmas
>>(as established in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas").
>
>I always figured _Horton Hears a Who_ was an anti-abortion tract in
>disguise: "A person's a person, no matter how small!"
Simply yet another hagiography for the greatest family of all time.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Michael Kube-McDowell
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> carefully left the following thoughtprints
where they could be seen:
>In article <HoW9c.123775$_w.1556728@attbi_s53>,
> Michael Kube-McDowell <alter...@example.net> wrote:
>
>> >I'm not a Christian, but I don't see why a Christian couldn't accept the
>> >relevant parts of that. Even if there is a creator with a master plan,
>> >we don't know what it is. And the creator could have chosen to create us
>> >differently and create a different past. After all, from the standpoint
>> >of non-Christians, the past is nailed down too--it has already happened.
>> >Once you are willing to go to "might have beens," they are no easier for
>> >us than for the Christian.
>
>> The reason seems to be that if you plug born-again Christian values into that
>> equation, you end up in a very different place. The science fiction future
>> has
>> been, by and large, a secular humanist future (and I suspect that most of the
>> exceptions treat devout theistic belief as a bug rather than a
>> feature--belief
>> in gods being viewed as a hangover from humanity's pre-scientific mysticism,
>> something to grow out of).
>
>I agree that lots of sf has been written by people with views
>inconsistent with various forms of Christianity--but I don't think that
>has anything much to do with the nature of sf. Some sf has been written
>by people who were strongly convinced Christians--and I don't think that
>has much to do with the nature of sf either.
I think you may have mistaken a descriptive observation for a prescriptive
definition. I am not interested in trying to say what SF _should_ be, or
_must_ be, in terms of its philosophical position on religion in general or
Christian theism specifically.
I'm only trying to amplify my original comment, which I don't see any reason
to abandon--that I perceive such a disconnect between "born-again
Christianity" and science fiction -as it has been hitting the shelves- in the
forty years I've been reading it that it's not at all clear to me what a
"born-again Christian science fiction fan" could read, or what the payoffs
would be.
And, as I said, part of that perception comes from having librarians as
friends, and hearing from them about challenges to SF books in the
conservative Christian communiity in which we worked. (As one of my librarian
friends observed to me, the only reason there wasn't -more- trouble over SF
was that it was under the radar of most would-be censors--they didn't read it,
and they didn't know what was between the covers. But when they do notice--)
>> It's almost by definition a future in which
>> humanity looks to science and technology for answers,
>
>I don't see that at all. In some sf science and technology provide
>answers, in some they provide problems, in some they merely provide the
>background for human problems. And a believing Christian can look to
>science and technology for the answers to some questions--most of them,
>when they want to go to Europe, do it by buying an airline ticket, not
>praying for a miracle.
My original comments addressed "born-again Christians," not "believing
Christians." The set restriction is important to my point.
>> and in which invoking
>> divine will or intervention violates all the rules. (Imagine "On the Beach"
>> or
>> "The Cold Equations" or "Childhood's End" or even "Footfall" with the
>> Christian God either altering or dictating the course of events. Imagine
>> Captain Kirk responding in a desperate moment by calling on the entire crew
>> to pray together.)
>
>A Christian doesn't have to assume that other people are Christians, so
>he doesn't have to assume that they will try to solve problems by
>prayers. And he doesn't have to assume that direct divine intervention
>is a routine option. "God helps those who help themselves" is consistent
>with a Christian view of the world.
Again, you seem to be trying to draw me into extending my comments to cover
all sorts of Christian believers, and I have no reason to go there. I am
thinking very specifically about born-again Christians, whose expectations
about God's role in their lives are arguably out at one extreme of a broad
spectrum.
I am reminded of a science teacher whose classroom was down the hall from
mine; he was a born-again Christian, a creationist, a man who took his family
out of the Mennonite church because it was too liberal for his tastes. He
believed that God had personally intervened in his life, and he believed it
could happen again--he had prayed for years to be granted the blessing of
speaking in tongues, and after his prayers were finally answered one Sunday,
he began "praying for a larger vocabulary." (Those are his own words.)
I can imagine him reading LEFT BEHIND--if he read fiction at all, which I
never knew him to do. But mainstream SF? Heinlein? Clarke? Silverberg? Farmer?
Anthony? The odds of him picking up an SF novel at random from the '60s
forward and -not-- finding something deeply objectionable are not the sort of
odds you'd want if betting the rent money.
>
>> >There have been sf stories where our evolution was guided by
>> >aliens--consider, for a small example, the Puppeteers breeding humans
>> >for luck. I would have thought that, for most sf stories, whether humans
>> >are the product of Darwinian evolution or divine plan isn't very
>> >important.
>>
>> Stories of aliens meddling with the course of human evolution play two of the
>> underlying assumptions of SF off against each other--the probability of
>> intelligent life elsewhere, and the fact of biological evolution. Both
>> assumptions are going to croggle a lot of born-again Christians.
>
>I don't see any reason why the possibility of other intelligent life
>should be a problem--it wasn't for Lewis, or Tokien, or various other
>Christian writers. Indeed, Christian fundamentalists have to believe in
>some other forms of intelligent life--most obviously angels. And even
>someone who doesn't believe we are the product of Darwinian evolution
>can still believe in selective breeding--after all, humans have been
>breeding plants and animals for a very long time.
I think you're reaching here, David. At the very least, I can tell you've
never been in a conversation with a born-again Christian who categorically
rejected all SF which included aliens, on the grounds that God had created the
universe for humanity and hadn't _made_ any aliens.
>> But the Biblical God as a causal agent--that's -way- outside the parameters.
>> The body of SF is largely agnostic--at best, it takes the position Laplace
>> took with Napoleon ("I have no need of that hypothesis"). Some of it goes
>> further, into active hostility to religion as a stubborn and frequently
>> dangerous superstition hindering human progress.
>
>That's a statement about the beliefs of lots of sf authors, not about
>the nature of the field.
The beliefs of lots of sf authors--if only their beliefs about what SF readers
want to read--have an awful lot to do with the nature of the field _considered
as what's shown up on the shelves the last forty or fifty years_
Again, I am not arguing for a prescriptive definition of what SF _must be_. I
am just offering an observation about what it _has been_.
If science fiction historically affirmed rather than challenged conservative
Christian beliefs and values, I expect there'd be a lot more Christian
bookstores carrying it...
Lis Carey
news:c4ak7m$eu3$1...@panix2.panix.com:
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> If somebody kidnapped a woman, took her across state lines, and then
>> tied her down and performed the abortion, well, then it would be a
>> crime. But that's strikes me as a reasonable outcome.
>
> This wasn't *already* against the law? I find that hard to believe.
>
> If it was already illegal, why is a new law needed?
Assault, kidnapping, probably a Mann Act violation there, too--yeah, it's
against the law. It just doesn't happen to be a separate crime against the
unborn baby that got aborted in this scenario. And the laws involved don't
define the unborn child as a separate human being with full rights, which
is the real point of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act--because of course
it only applies to _federal_ violent crimes against women, and very few
asaults or murders are federal crimes. (Although the scenario Pete
describes above is one that would be, because if the kidnapping alone isn't
sufficient to make it a federal offense, taking her across state lines
covers it.)
Lis Carey
Gene Wolfe, Tim Powers. Walter Miller. Fr. Andrew Greeley isn't exactly one
of the towering giants of sf, but he has written two sf novels and edited
at least one anthology. C. S. Lewis was an Anglican, but an Anglican whose
works, both sfnal and more directly didactly religious, are not only widely
read by Catholics, but fairly widely used in Catholic schools.
I'm not even working at this. And I haven't started naming the prominent
fans guilty of practicing Catholicism.
> Are fans of Heinlein and Clarke, of Asimov and Cherryh and Dickson and
> McCaffrey, reading LaHaye's LEFT BEHIND series? Are born-again
> Christians reading Silverberg's "Pope of the Chimps"? I have my
> doubts.
There's not a lot of Catholics that have the LEFT BEHIND series high on
their hit parade, either, K-Mac. The fundie born-againers are pretty clear
about Catholics not being Christians, you know.
But maybe you don't know. You DO seem to be confusing Catholics and fundie
born-againers.
K-Mac, it's trivially easy, at any convention I've been to, to get a group
together to go to Mass on Sunday morning or Saturday afternoon. I know
there are Protestant gatherings as well--probably not fundies, I grant you,
but fundies are a loud minority of Christians. I won't run through the
other religious observances going on at any large convention, since it
seems to be Christians you've got the bee in your bonnet about, but,
generally speaking, atheists in sf fandom seem to believe they're far more
prevalent than they are, in part because they're so much more vocal about
their beliefs than the average religious fan
Lis Carey
news:c49dmu$5ps$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>
> In article <Xns94BB3D51F9F2Al...@216.196.97.136>,
> Lis Carey <lisc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>Catholics aren't Mennonites, K-Mac. Or fundamentalist evangelicals,
>>either. In fact, the fundamentalis evangelicals don't think we're
>>Christians, in part because we _don't believe in predestination_.
>
> I know the fundamentalists like to say "will of God" a lot, but do
> they believe in predestination in its original meaning, that you are
> predestined to go to heaven or hell? That would seem to fly in the
> face of all their talk about choosing Christ as your Lord and Savior,
> etc., but then, logical consistancy isn't exactly one of their strong
> points.
Real, pure-quill fundamentalists do.
> I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why, if one's salvation
> or lack thereof is predestined, one should not party one's ass off
> while one has the chance. Especially if you can't have sex in heaven.
Because if you want the status in this life of being one of the Elect, you
have to convincingly act the part.
Lis Carey
One would hardly think so, considering how much science is being done by
monks and nuns at least partly on the Church dime.
OTOH, if I'm recalling your age range correctly, an awful lot of people
were leaving religious life, in part because modernization of the orders to
be useful in the modern world was a painful and disruptive process, and in
part because the orders were no longer the only or the primary place to do
a lot of the "good works" that were the primary activities of the non-
contemplative orders.
>> If you
>>weren't attending the religion classes, you may have missed the heavy
>>emphasis on personal responsibility.
>
> I got straight A's in four years of theology class. The first two
> involved a lot of parroting of the contents of a series of
> saddle-bound booklets whose series title I can no longer remember, but
Yeah, high school isn't necessarily the best place to study religion...
> the last two years, which involved crossing logical and philosophical
> swords with a very sharp Jesuit priest, were delightful.
...unless the school has manage to snag a good Jesuit.:)
> Unlike American Protestantism, Catholicism has a respectable tradition
> of scholarship and inquiry, and the contemporary Church's position on
> a number of scientific questions (including evolution) is commendable.
> They have really gone about as far as they possibly can to harmonize
> faith and modern science.
It's not that hard; God doesn't lie. In studying the physical world, we're
studying, in essence, God's thoughts. And if we're open and attentive to
the evidence, and are honest in our attempts at understanding, we can't go
far astray.
It's deciding what the truth of the physical world is in advance, including
insisting on the literal truth of (selected!) parts of the Bible, that gets
one deep into theological difficulties. (Yes, Catholics oppose teaching
"creation science" in the public schools in part because it's heresy. Have
I managed to shock anyone?)
>>Although, as I recall, discussions with the nuns about Lewis's Space
>>Trilogy and Blish's _A Case of Conscience_ were optional.
>>
>>Catholics aren't Mennonites, K-Mac. Or fundamentalist evangelicals,
>>either.
>
> Honestly, I have little trouble keeping that straight.
That's nice. It's not possible to discern that from your earlier posts on
the subject.
>>In fact, the fundamentalis evangelicals don't think we're Christians,
>>in part because we _don't believe in predestination_.
>
> Well, yes and no. It's a complex question. Certainly there's no
> problem distinguishing between Calvinism and Catholicism on this
> point, but Ludwig Ott in FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA identifies
> both of the following statements as _De fide_ dogmas of the faith:
>
> God, by His eternal resolve of will, has predetermined certain men to
> eternal blessedness.
>
> and
>
> God, by an eternal resolve of His will, predestines certain men, on
> account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.
Strangely, these "fundamentals" of Catholic dogma never crossed my path in
years of CCD classes, Catholic middle school, and Catholic college, not to
mention a good bit of undirected reading. What the (obviously unreliable)
priests and nuns who taught me taught is that God offers His grace freely
to everyone, and that everyone is free to accept or reject it.
> There are fine points under each of those which are debated by various
> schools of theological thought--the Thomists, Augustinians, Scotists,
> Molinists, etc. And when we throw in the allied concept of divine
> providence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm), things can
> get -really- complicated. More complicated than I'm prepared to tackle
> at this point, anyway.
Honestly, I think the Catholic love of arguing about theology, expressed in
part in the ability to keep four or five schools of theology going
simultaneously, is one of the things that freaks out the more conservative
types of Protestant.:)
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
[snippage]
I think it's fairly clear that K-Mac was talking about born-again Christians,
not Christians in general. You needn't defend Catholicism from his charges
of not having a cosmic mind, or whatever these charges are.
-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> If somebody kidnapped a woman, took her across state lines, and then
>> tied her down and performed the abortion, well, then it would be a
>> crime. But that's strikes me as a reasonable outcome.
>
>This wasn't *already* against the law? I find that hard to believe.
Of course it's already illegal.
>
>If it was already illegal, why is a new law needed?
The theory is that assaulting a pregnant woman so as to cause death or
injury to her unborn child is worse than assaulting somebody who isn't
pregnant.
I'm usually sympathetic to the notion that no new law is needed for
things that are already illegal. So called "hate crimes" for example.
I don't see why it should be more of a crime to beat up somebody
because they're gay or black or Jewish than to beat up the same
individual out of sheer sadistic glee. So I'm not sure of the point
of "hate crime" laws. But it strikes me that when a pregnant woman is
victimized and the unborn child in injured, there really is an
additional injury that might justify additional punishment.
--
Pete McCutchen
Michael Kube-McDowell
left the following thoughtprints where they could be seen:
>Michael Kube-McDowell <alter...@example.net> wrote in
>news:HoW9c.123775$_w.1556728@attbi_s53:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 03:08:42 GMT, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> carefully left the following
>> thoughtprints where they could be seen:
>>
>>>In article <e8I9c.26238$JO3.26564@attbi_s04>,
>>> Michael Kube-McDowell <alter...@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27 Mar 2004 21:05:54 GMT, tekt...@aol.comnospam (TekTeam26)
>>>> carefully left the following thoughtprints where they could be seen:
>>>>
>>>> > I am a born-again Christian and a science fiction fan.
>>>>
>>>> I've always considered this a puzzling contradiction that must
>>>> demand some fundamental compromise of either "born-again Christian"
>>>> or "science fiction fan."
I left this in because I want it to be unambiguously clear that I did not make
a statement about all Christians--I made a comment about a subset of all
Christians, specifically born-again Christians.
I do not have, as you put it, a "bee in my bonnet" about Christians in fandom
or Christians reading science fiction.
>> The reason seems to be that if you plug born-again Christian values
>> into that equation, you end up in a very different place. The science
>> fiction future has been, by and large, a secular humanist future (and
>> I suspect that most of the exceptions treat devout theistic belief as
>> a bug rather than a feature--belief in gods being viewed as a hangover
>> from humanity's pre-scientific mysticism, something to grow out of).
>> It's almost by definition a future in which humanity looks to science
>> and technology for answers, and in which invoking divine will or
>> intervention violates all the rules. (Imagine "On the Beach" or "The
>> Cold Equations" or "Childhood's End" or even "Footfall" with the
>> Christian God either altering or dictating the course of events.
>> Imagine Captain Kirk responding in a desperate moment by calling on
>> the entire crew to pray together.)
Left this in for the same reason. Please note that I am specifically
contrasting a _born-again_ Christian outlook with the prevailing assumptions
of science fiction. I do not see much if any overlap between the two, and the
born-again Christians I had direct contact with (mostly but not exclusively
during the decade I lived in northern Indiana) didn't, either. So I am puzzled
as to what a self-described "born-again Christian science fiction fan" would
read, and what they would get out of it.
>> Stories of aliens meddling with the course of human evolution play two
>> of the underlying assumptions of SF off against each other--the
>> probability of intelligent life elsewhere, and the fact of biological
>> evolution. Both assumptions are going to croggle a lot of born-again
>> Christians.
Please note again that I am not making any representations about _all_
Christians.
I have had a face-to-face conversation with a self-described born-again
Christian who told me "I don't believe in science fiction." She made a point
of stopping at the table where I was having a slow signing (at a Waldenbooks
in the Concord Mall) to tell me this. When I asked her why, she went on to
explain that God hadn't made any aliens, the entire Universe had been created
for mankind--therefore all science fiction consisted of lies bordering on
heresy. I assured her that there were no aliens in the book I was pitching,
but she didn't seem mollified.
Why would you word it that way? This started when I wondered aloud about the
reading habits of born-again Christian science fiction fans--not about
Catholic science fiction fans. And I thought I was pretty clear in assessing
SF as _largely_ (not exclusively) agnostic. I'm of course aware of all the
writers you named, and own and have read novels by all of them (including
Greeley). Heck, I wrote an explicitly Catholic science fiction story myself,
for the PERPETUAL LIGHT anthology.*
I might be _wrong_ about the where the balance point is--I haven't read
everything, far from it, and my reading is sample-biased toward, oh, 1950
through 1985. (I would take some serious convincing, but I could be wrong.)
But nothing I said should have been read as any sort of attack on either
Catholic writers or Catholic fans. I am -really- not sure how we got here.
>> Are fans of Heinlein and Clarke, of Asimov and Cherryh and Dickson and
>> McCaffrey, reading LaHaye's LEFT BEHIND series? Are born-again
>> Christians reading Silverberg's "Pope of the Chimps"? I have my
>> doubts.
>
>There's not a lot of Catholics that have the LEFT BEHIND series high on
>their hit parade, either, K-Mac. The fundie born-againers are pretty clear
>about Catholics not being Christians, you know.
Since I'm still very specifically talking about born-again Christians, I am
not sure how you concluded I was talking about Catholics.
>But maybe you don't know. You DO seem to be confusing Catholics and fundie
>born-againers
I truly don't know how I managed to give you that impression.
>K-Mac, it's trivially easy, at any convention I've been to, to get a group
>together to go to Mass on Sunday morning or Saturday afternoon. I know
>there are Protestant gatherings as well--probably not fundies, I grant you,
>but fundies are a loud minority of Christians. I won't run through the
>other religious observances going on at any large convention, since it
>seems to be Christians you've got the bee in your bonnet about, but,
>generally speaking, atheists in sf fandom seem to believe they're far more
>prevalent than they are, in part because they're so much more vocal about
>their beliefs than the average religious fan.
I'm fairly confident that American SF fans, as a group, are less religious in
practice and belief--and if religious, more likely to be involved in paganism
or another 'alternative' tradition--than the American population as a whole.
(Probably even less so/more so, respectively, than a subset of the American
population which matches fandom on demographics such as income and education,
but I can't assert that with equal confidence.)
But underneath that, there's still a lot of diversity. I wouldn't consider it
at all remarkable for a dozen fannish Catholics to make plans to get together
to go to Mass--any more than I would a dozen fans to get together for sushi,
or Thai, or a trip to the nearest Lazer-Tag parlor or high-energy physics lab.
Because experience conditions expectations, I -would- be surprised to find
mainstream religious services a commonplace part of the con program, in con
function space--even though I would not be surprised to hear that it has
happened somewhere, somewhen. (I don't think it has happened anywhere I've
been, but I won't swear to that. I often don't get to look at the program and
see what I missed until after I get home.)
Michael
*Of course, the very premise of that anthology argues in favor of my
perception that, in the main, modern science fiction has been agnostic if not
anti-religious. It was sold on a pitch which said, in essence, "Science
fiction has ignored religion--until now."
Aaron Denney
> I'm usually sympathetic to the notion that no new law is needed for
> things that are already illegal. So called "hate crimes" for example.
> I don't see why it should be more of a crime to beat up somebody
> because they're gay or black or Jewish than to beat up the same
> individual out of sheer sadistic glee. So I'm not sure of the point
> of "hate crime" laws. But it strikes me that when a pregnant woman is
> victimized and the unborn child in injured, there really is an
> additional injury that might justify additional punishment.
Why wouldn't tort cover that?
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
David Friedman
Michael Kube-McDowell <alter...@example.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:38:10 GMT, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> carefully left the following thoughtprints
> where they could be seen:
>
> >In article <HoW9c.123775$_w.1556728@attbi_s53>,
> > Michael Kube-McDowell <alter...@example.net> wrote:
...
> >I agree that lots of sf has been written by people with views
> >inconsistent with various forms of Christianity--but I don't think that
> >has anything much to do with the nature of sf. Some sf has been written
> >by people who were strongly convinced Christians--and I don't think that
> >has much to do with the nature of sf either.
>
> I think you may have mistaken a descriptive observation for a prescriptive
> definition. I am not interested in trying to say what SF _should_ be, or
> _must_ be, in terms of its philosophical position on religion in general or
> Christian theism specifically.
>
> I'm only trying to amplify my original comment, which I don't see any reason
> to abandon--that I perceive such a disconnect between "born-again
> Christianity" and science fiction -as it has been hitting the shelves- in the
> forty years I've been reading it that it's not at all clear to me what a
> "born-again Christian science fiction fan" could read, or what the payoffs
> would be.
If there is no essential incompatibility between sf and the views of
born-again Christians, then the descriptive observation that a lot of sf
doesn't fit with the views of born-again Christians doesn't raise the
puzzle you describe--because ten percent of all the sf out there is
still quite a lot.
> And, as I said, part of that perception comes from having librarians as
> friends, and hearing from them about challenges to SF books in the
> conservative Christian communiity in which we worked. (As one of my librarian
> friends observed to me, the only reason there wasn't -more- trouble over SF
> was that it was under the radar of most would-be censors--they didn't read
> it,
> and they didn't know what was between the covers. But when they do notice--)
The problem with that observation is that it could reflect the views of
some but not all conservative Christians.
> >> It's almost by definition a future in which
> >> humanity looks to science and technology for answers,
> >
> >I don't see that at all. In some sf science and technology provide
> >answers, in some they provide problems, in some they merely provide the
> >background for human problems. And a believing Christian can look to
> >science and technology for the answers to some questions--most of them,
> >when they want to go to Europe, do it by buying an airline ticket, not
> >praying for a miracle.
>
> My original comments addressed "born-again Christians," not "believing
> Christians." The set restriction is important to my point.
Born again Christians use airplanes instead of prayer too.
> >> and in which invoking
> >> divine will or intervention violates all the rules. (Imagine "On the
> >> Beach"
> >> or
> >> "The Cold Equations" or "Childhood's End" or even "Footfall" with the
> >> Christian God either altering or dictating the course of events. Imagine
> >> Captain Kirk responding in a desperate moment by calling on the entire
> >> crew
> >> to pray together.)
> >
> >A Christian doesn't have to assume that other people are Christians, so
> >he doesn't have to assume that they will try to solve problems by
> >prayers. And he doesn't have to assume that direct divine intervention
> >is a routine option. "God helps those who help themselves" is consistent
> >with a Christian view of the world.
>
> Again, you seem to be trying to draw me into extending my comments to cover
> all sorts of Christian believers, and I have no reason to go there. I am
> thinking very specifically about born-again Christians, whose expectations
> about God's role in their lives are arguably out at one extreme of a broad
> spectrum.
Perhaps part of the problem is different perceptions of what "born again
Christian" means. I had a friend in the SCA who described himself as
such, and was quite a reasonable person. I rather think one of my
colleagues described himself that way as well, although I'm less sure in
his case. My rather casual impression is that "born again" doesn't
describe a particular sect, or even a group of fundamentalist sects, but
rather the personal experience someone thinks he has had of God.
...
> >I don't see any reason why the possibility of other intelligent life
> >should be a problem--it wasn't for Lewis, or Tokien, or various other
> >Christian writers. Indeed, Christian fundamentalists have to believe in
> >some other forms of intelligent life--most obviously angels. And even
> >someone who doesn't believe we are the product of Darwinian evolution
> >can still believe in selective breeding--after all, humans have been
> >breeding plants and animals for a very long time.
>
> I think you're reaching here, David. At the very least, I can tell you've
> never been in a conversation with a born-again Christian who categorically
> rejected all SF which included aliens, on the grounds that God had created
> the universe for humanity and hadn't _made_ any aliens.
That's true--I haven't. But one such conversation would only tell me
that one person who considered himself a born-again Christian had that
attitude. So far as I can tell, there isn't a "born again party line"
that everyone who self describes as born again has to follow.
Bernard Peek
<alter...@example.net> writes
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:31:00 +0100, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> carefully
>left the following thoughtprints where they could be seen:
>
>>In message <4067C114...@net-link.net>, Kristopher
>><eosl...@net-link.net> writes
>>>
>>>If the future is known with complete certainty, then the
>>>freedom to chose is non-existent. The two are exclusive.
>>
>>No, there's no conflict. The decision-maker has made a free choice. The
>>fact that someone has observed it doesn't make the choice any less free.
>
>What, no observer effect?
Apparently not. Of course you have to postulate an omniscient God, not
bound by the limitations of quantum effects. That is God knows both the
exact velocity and precise location of every subatomic particle.
McLean1382
>From: Lis Carey lisc...@comcast.net
>Date: 3/29/2004 10:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns94BBE1781A4BCl...@216.196.97.136>
(snip)
>>
>> But the Biblical God as a causal agent--that's -way- outside the
>> parameters. The body of SF is largely agnostic--at best, it takes the
>> position Laplace took with Napoleon ("I have no need of that
>> hypothesis"). Some of it goes further, into active hostility to
>> religion as a stubborn and frequently dangerous superstition hindering
>> human progress.
>>
>> It isn't an absolute divide--for instance, R.A. Lafferty's work is
>> shot through with his Catholicism. But Lafferty is also pretty fringy
>> SF.
>
>Gene Wolfe, Tim Powers. Walter Miller. Fr. Andrew Greeley isn't exactly one
>of the towering giants of sf, but he has written two sf novels and edited
>at least one anthology. C. S. Lewis was an Anglican, but an Anglican whose
>works, both sfnal and more directly didactly religious, are not only widely
>read by Catholics, but fairly widely used in Catholic schools.
>
Connie Willis. Philip K. Dick
Will McLean
Michael Kube-McDowell
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> carefully left the following thoughtprints
where they could be seen:
>In article <Sw5ac.130380$Cb.1467707@attbi_s51>,
> Michael Kube-McDowell <alter...@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:38:10 GMT, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> carefully left the following thoughtprints
>> where they could be seen:
>>
>> >In article <HoW9c.123775$_w.1556728@attbi_s53>,
>> > Michael Kube-McDowell <alter...@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think you may have mistaken a descriptive observation for a prescriptive
>> definition. I am not interested in trying to say what SF _should_ be, or
>> _must_ be, in terms of its philosophical position on religion in general or
>> Christian theism specifically.
>>
>> I'm only trying to amplify my original comment, which I don't see any reason
>> to abandon--that I perceive such a disconnect between "born-again
>> Christianity" and science fiction -as it has been hitting the shelves- in the
>> forty years I've been reading it that it's not at all clear to me what a
>> "born-again Christian science fiction fan" could read, or what the payoffs
>> would be.
>
>If there is no essential incompatibility between sf and the views of
>born-again Christians, then the descriptive observation that a lot of sf
>doesn't fit with the views of born-again Christians doesn't raise the
>puzzle you describe--because ten percent of all the sf out there is
>still quite a lot.
It's not an 'essentialist' argument. There is, however, a practical one--if
even as much as ten percent of available science fiction doesn't clash with
the values of born-again Christians, that's still a pretty high barrier to
entry. In that respect, they'd be no different from all the people who've
tried two SF novels, decided they know what SF is, and decided it's not for
them.
>> And, as I said, part of that perception comes from having librarians as
>> friends, and hearing from them about challenges to SF books in the
>> conservative Christian communiity in which we worked. (As one of my librarian
>> friends observed to me, the only reason there wasn't -more- trouble over SF
>> was that it was under the radar of most would-be censors--they didn't read
>> it,
>> and they didn't know what was between the covers. But when they do notice--)
>
>The problem with that observation is that it could reflect the views of
>some but not all conservative Christians.
I'm content with a sturdy generalization--I don't need universals and
absolutes (which is a good thing, because human behavior doesn't offer many).
My friend has been a school librarian in this particular community for
thirty-five years. I think she has a healthy enough data set to give the
observation some weight.
>> >> It's almost by definition a future in which
>> >> humanity looks to science and technology for answers,
>> >
>> >I don't see that at all. In some sf science and technology provide
>> >answers, in some they provide problems, in some they merely provide the
>> >background for human problems. And a believing Christian can look to
>> >science and technology for the answers to some questions--most of them,
>> >when they want to go to Europe, do it by buying an airline ticket, not
>> >praying for a miracle.
>>
>> My original comments addressed "born-again Christians," not "believing
>> Christians." The set restriction is important to my point.
>
>Born again Christians use airplanes instead of prayer too.
I'd suppose most use airplanes -and- prayer...
I think you probably understand that getting from America to Europe isn't the
kind of problem science fiction is deeply engaged with. Air travel is part of
the furniture of the present. It's a solved problem. The "answers" I alluded
to in the passage quoted above have to do with what kind of futures we could
have, and how we get there from here.
What do we do about AIDS? Should parents be able to choose their children's
heritable traits? Can technology 'uplift' humankind? What's the point of going
to Mars? Global warming: threat or menace? What is the nature of
consciousness? What is the nature of intelligence? Could we survive a
planetary plague? What might we learn about ourselves via cloning?
Whether the human prospect is envisioned as being plugged in and drugged out,
or as starfarers in a boundless universe, whether the next hundred and fifty
years are compressed into a half-page of backfill or pored over in loving
detail (as in FOR US, THE LIVING), science fiction typically portrays us as
the architects (or destroyers) of our own tomorrow. I don't think most SF fans
would be receptive to the idea that God gave Starfleet warp-drive technology,
or that FOOTFALL's asteroid was God's judgment on us for our wickedness, or
that humans are alone in Asimov's Robot universe because special creation only
happened once.
It strongly implies evangelical Protestantism, but it's at root a
self-identification, not a status conferred by membership in this or that
church.
>> >I don't see any reason why the possibility of other intelligent life
>> >should be a problem--it wasn't for Lewis, or Tokien, or various other
>> >Christian writers. Indeed, Christian fundamentalists have to believe in
>> >some other forms of intelligent life--most obviously angels. And even
>> >someone who doesn't believe we are the product of Darwinian evolution
>> >can still believe in selective breeding--after all, humans have been
>> >breeding plants and animals for a very long time.
>>
>> I think you're reaching here, David. At the very least, I can tell you've
>> never been in a conversation with a born-again Christian who categorically
>> rejected all SF which included aliens, on the grounds that God had created
>> the universe for humanity and hadn't _made_ any aliens.
>
>That's true--I haven't. But one such conversation would only tell me
>that one person who considered himself a born-again Christian had that
>attitude. So far as I can tell, there isn't a "born again party line"
>that everyone who self describes as born again has to follow.
That doesn't mean useful generalizations aren't possible. That was just one
illustration from ten years of living and working in a conservative Christian
community--Bible Belt -and- suspenders.
McLean1382
Will McLean
Kristopher
> Kristopher wrote:
>
>> If the future is known with complete certainty, then the
>> freedom to chose is non-existent. The two are exclusive.
>
>
>> I am compelled to agree.
>
> I am free to disagree. I am also compelled to disagree.
> This is not a contradiction.
>
> Free is the opposite of coerced, not of determined. Determined
> is the opposite of random, not of free. I have free will.
You're playing semantics with the term "free will."
> A being with sufficient knowledge of my brain state could
> predict my future actions under any given circumstances, since
> my brain is, after all, made of matter, which works according
> to strictly deterministic laws.
>
> The cause of my actions is my choices. But what are the causes
> of my choices? The cause of my typing this message is my free
> choice to type this message. But what is the cause of my
> choosing to choose to type this message? Did I choose to choose?
> And if so, did I first choose to choose to choose? And before
> that, did I choose to choose to choose to choose? Is it turtles
> all the way down? Of course not. The cause of my choices is
> brain chemistry. The cause of my brain chemistry is physics.
> The cause of physics is mathematics. And mathematics isn't
> caused, it just is, since it would contradictory for it not to
> be, or for it to be different.
Physics is "caused" by mathematics?
So in other words, if we ignore all the things that might
contradict your arguement, then it's probably true. Nice.
--
Kristopher
The question is not "What," or "How," but rather "-Why-?"
Kristopher
>
> Kristopher writes:
>> Bernard Peek wrote:
>>> Michael Kube-McDowell writes:
>>>> TekTeam26 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am a born-again Christian and a science fiction fan.
>>>>
>>>> I've always considered this a puzzling contradiction that
>>>> must demand some fundamental compromise of either
>>>> "born-again Christian" or "science fiction fan."
>>>>
>>>> I say that because to me the underlying premise that makes
>>>> science fiction "work" is that the past didn't have to be
>>>> the way it was, and the future is ours to shape.
>>>>
>>>> No Creator with a master plan.
>>>
>>> That's a false dichotomy. The Christian concept is of a God
>>> who gave mankind free-will. The fact that God knows in
>>> advance what each human decision will be doesn't in any way
>>> compromise the human's freedom to choose.
>>
>> If the future is known with complete certainty, then the
>> freedom to chose is non-existent. The two are exclusive.
>
> No, there's no conflict. The decision-maker has made a free
> choice. The fact that someone has observed it doesn't make
> the choice any less free.
If everything that will ever happen is already known, how on
earth can everyone's "choices" be anything but an illusion?
Bernard Peek
<eosl...@net-link.net> writes
>>>> That's a false dichotomy. The Christian concept is of a God
>>>> who gave mankind free-will. The fact that God knows in
>>>> advance what each human decision will be doesn't in any way
>>>> compromise the human's freedom to choose.
>>>
>>> If the future is known with complete certainty, then the
>>> freedom to chose is non-existent. The two are exclusive.
>>
>> No, there's no conflict. The decision-maker has made a free
>> choice. The fact that someone has observed it doesn't make
>> the choice any less free.
>
>If everything that will ever happen is already known, how on
>earth can everyone's "choices" be anything but an illusion?
Does the fact that that you now know what you had for lunch today mean
that you weren't free to decide?
Kristopher
>
> Kristopher writes
>
>>>>> That's a false dichotomy. The Christian concept is of a God
>>>>> who gave mankind free-will. The fact that God knows in
>>>>> advance what each human decision will be doesn't in any way
>>>>> compromise the human's freedom to choose.
>>>>
>>>> If the future is known with complete certainty, then the
>>>> freedom to chose is non-existent. The two are exclusive.
>>>
>>> No, there's no conflict. The decision-maker has made a free
>>> choice. The fact that someone has observed it doesn't make
>>> the choice any less free.
>>
>> If everything that will ever happen is already known, how on
>> earth can everyone's "choices" be anything but an illusion?
>
> Does the fact that that you now know what you had for lunch
> today mean that you weren't free to decide?
Time being linear and unidirectional, knowledge of the past
and knowledge of the future are not equivalent.
Michael Kube-McDowell
wrote:
No, it would mean that if I knew now what I had for lunch tomorrow.
And tomorrow and tomorrow and the tomorrow after that.
--
Michael Kube-McDowell, author and packrat
http://k-mac.home.att.net/
VECTORS preview at http://www.sff.net/people/K-Mac/Vectors.htm
David Friedman
Kristopher <eosl...@net-link.net> wrote:
> > No, there's no conflict. The decision-maker has made a free
> > choice. The fact that someone has observed it doesn't make
> > the choice any less free.
>
> If everything that will ever happen is already known, how on
> earth can everyone's "choices" be anything but an illusion?
How about your choices yesterday? If we now know what choices you made,
does that mean that they weren't free when you made them?
If the answer is that it doesn't, then how is the logic of the situation
changed if we assume a god who can see the future?
David Friedman
Michael Kube-McDowell <alter...@example.net> wrote:
> I don't think most SF fans
> would be receptive to the idea that God gave Starfleet warp-drive technology,
> or that FOOTFALL's asteroid was God's judgment on us for our wickedness, or
> that humans are alone in Asimov's Robot universe because special creation only
> happened once.
And yet they are receptive to various stories in which our technology or
history is due to outside influence from some superior race. And I
believe that _Out of the Silent Planet_ and its sequels are still in
print.
More important, they are receptive to lots of stories where those
questions simply never come up.
...
> >Perhaps part of the problem is different perceptions of what "born again
> >Christian" means. I had a friend in the SCA who described himself as
> >such, and was quite a reasonable person. I rather think one of my
> >colleagues described himself that way as well, although I'm less sure in
> >his case. My rather casual impression is that "born again" doesn't
> >describe a particular sect, or even a group of fundamentalist sects, but
> >rather the personal experience someone thinks he has had of God.
> It strongly implies evangelical Protestantism, but it's at root a
> self-identification, not a status conferred by membership in this or that
> church.
Agreed. Yet you seem to identify it with biblical literalism, which so
far as I can tell is something quite different. Some born again
Christians are literalists, some aren't, and similarly the other way
around.
David Friedman
wrote:
I don't think you have to assume that. In some views of Quantum
Mechanics, after all, the uncertainty principle is a statement about
things not observers--there is no such beast as an electron with a
precise location and a precise position.
Dave Weingart
>It's not that hard; God doesn't lie. In studying the physical world, we're
>studying, in essence, God's thoughts. And if we're open and attentive to
>the evidence, and are honest in our attempts at understanding, we can't go
>far astray.
obFilk: "Word of God" by Cat Faber of Echo's children.
And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(full lyrics online at http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK Erika Lacey for DUFF! Info at
mailto:phyd...@liii.com http://www.duff2004.com/
http://www.weingart.net/
ICQ 57055207
Bernard Peek
<eosl...@net-link.net> writes
We are talking about an entity that can view any event from its future
so there are no events that you can consider to be in its future. There
may be events in your future but the difference between those and events
in your past is subjective, and entirely due to your viewpoint.
At some time in my past you wrote the words:
>Time being linear and unidirectional, knowledge of the past
>and knowledge of the future are not equivalent.
Does the fact that I know that you wrote them in my past mean that you
were not free to use different words?
It's been said that if we ever discover time-travel we will need to
re-engineer the language to include a whole new set of tenses, just so
that we can describe what happens. If someone goes back and kills their
grandfather just what verb would we use to describe what they had done
to themselves?
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
>We are talking about an entity that can view any event from its future
>so there are no events that you can consider to be in its future.
Which means that all those events have already happened and all
outcomes are fixed.
--
Leif Kjønnøy, Geek of a Few Trades. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
Disclaimer: Do not try this at home.
Void where prohibited by law.
Batteries not included.
Kristopher
> Kristopher wrote:
>
>>> No, there's no conflict. The decision-maker has made a free
>>> choice. The fact that someone has observed it doesn't make
>>> the choice any less free.
>>
>> If everything that will ever happen is already known, how on
>> earth can everyone's "choices" be anything but an illusion?
>
> How about your choices yesterday? If we now know what choices
> you made, does that mean that they weren't free when you made
> them?
>
> If the answer is that it doesn't, then how is the logic of
> the situation changed if we assume a god who can see the
> future?
The future and the past are not equivalent. The past is set
in stone, and the future is undetermined. There is no way
to see into the future, as it doesn't exist as such -- it's
just possibilities and potentials.
If we assume a being who can see a determined future, then the
future is set in stone, and there is no free will, just the
illusion of it.
Kristopher
> Michael Kube-McDowell wrote:
>
>> I don't think most SF fans would be receptive to the idea
>> that God gave Starfleet warp-drive technology, or that
>> FOOTFALL's asteroid was God's judgment on us for our
>> wickedness, or that humans are alone in Asimov's Robot
>> universe because special creation only happened once.
>
> And yet they are receptive to various stories in which our
> technology or history is due to outside influence from some
> superior race.
Personally, I'm not very fond of those stories unless they are
very, very well done -- and even then it depends on my mood.
> And I believe that _Out of the Silent Planet_ and its sequels
> are still in print.
Never heard of it.
> More important, they are receptive to lots of stories where
> those questions simply never come up.
And?
Michael Kube-McDowell
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> carefully left the following thoughtprints
where they could be seen:
>In article <5ugac.36391$w54.250470@attbi_s01>,
> Michael Kube-McDowell <alter...@example.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't think most SF fans
>> would be receptive to the idea that God gave Starfleet warp-drive technology,
>> or that FOOTFALL's asteroid was God's judgment on us for our wickedness, or
>> that humans are alone in Asimov's Robot universe because special creation only
>> happened once.
>
>And yet they are receptive to various stories in which our technology or
>history is due to outside influence from some superior race. And I
>believe that _Out of the Silent Planet_ and its sequels are still in
>print.
Different triggers on the willing suspension of disbelief. Some folks consider
the existence of alien lifeforms more likely than the existence of the
Christian God. (Or more interesting.)
>More important, they are receptive to lots of stories where those
>questions simply never come up.
Stories, okay. I think it's a lot harder to completely duck the central
questions* when world-building at novel length. Even silence speaks volumes. A
novel set 200 years in humanity's future in which Christian or Muslim or
Jewish beliefs (or believers) play no role is making a statement about
religion, too.
I would have been perfectly delighted if the response to my expression of
cognitive dissonance had been half a dozen folks stepping forward to say "I am
a born-again Christian science fiction fan, and these are my ten favorite
science fiction novels." Again, I'm not trying to keep anyone out of the
tent--I'm just puzzled as to what they read and what they get out of it.
>> >Perhaps part of the problem is different perceptions of what "born again
>> >Christian" means. I had a friend in the SCA who described himself as
>> >such, and was quite a reasonable person. I rather think one of my
>> >colleagues described himself that way as well, although I'm less sure in
>> >his case. My rather casual impression is that "born again" doesn't
>> >describe a particular sect, or even a group of fundamentalist sects, but
>> >rather the personal experience someone thinks he has had of God.
>
>> It strongly implies evangelical Protestantism, but it's at root a
>> self-identification, not a status conferred by membership in this or that
>> church.
>
>Agreed. Yet you seem to identify it with biblical literalism, which so
>far as I can tell is something quite different. Some born again
>Christians are literalists, some aren't, and similarly the other way
>around.
I associate it with fundamentalism/literalism to the degree that the balance
seems to me to tilt that way. I'm usually not happy with saying "some
are--some aren't" and making no attempt to assess the proportions.
K-Mac
*What role does religious belief play in this culture? Are religious
observances public or private, token or significant? Are openly religious
persons credible and powerful, or ridiculed and marginalized? And so on.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Friedman wrote:
>> And I believe that _Out of the Silent Planet_ and its sequels
>> are still in print.
>
> Never heard of it.
C.S. Lewis; the second of the "Space Trilogy", starting with
_Perelandra_ and concluding with _That Hideous Strength_.
In my opinion, the weakest book in the trilogy. But anyway.
An important part of our genre's history IMHO.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>