YASID: religious implications of encountering extraterrestrial life?

[Lynn McGuire]

From a acquaintance, "What’s a famous sci-fi book about the religious
implications of encountering extraterrestrial life? I could have sworn
it was written by Connie Willis, but after perusing her bibliography on
Wikipedia, nothing rang a bell."

Lynn

[Kevrob]

I would nominate "The Sparrow" by Maria Doria Russell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sparrow_(novel)

"children of God" is the sequel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_God_(novel)

I sold a lot of copies of "Sparrow", but I never read it.
I'm not religious, and survived a Catholic upbringing. I
took a look at it and thought, "Meh. I've read Clarke's
`The Star.' She'll have to go some to beat that."

A co-worker who was in grad school for theology loved it.

Wiki notes Blish's "A Case of Conscience" in the Russell
article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Case_of_Conscience

Kevin R

[Lynn McGuire]

You nailed it !

"lynn,

You nailed it, thanks! _The Sparrow_ it is. Maria Doria Russell."

Lynn

[Kevrob]

Glad to help.

Kevin R

[alie...@gmail.com]

Al that came to my mind was Laumer's "The Exterminator" (AKA "A Bad Day For Vermin") which to my mind suggests but doesn't overtly cover the religious implications of intelligent aliens which come to Earth.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Lynn McGuire]

You know, thinking about this again, _Stranger In A Strange Land_ might
fit this description.

Lynn

[mcdow...@sky.com]

I see you've found the answer, but "A Case of Conscience" by Blish is not only relevant, but contains a foreword considering possible cases foreseen by Catholic theologians and considered consistent with their beliefs:

a) Inhabited by sentient creatures, but without souls; so to be treated with compassion but extra-evangelically

b) Inhabited by sentient creatures with fallen souls, through an original but not inevitable ancestral sin; so to be evangelized with urgent missionary charity.

c) Inhabited by sentient soul-endowed creatures that have not fallen... (basically try and learn from them)

[Mike Van Pelt]

In article <1f4c89e0-3659-4f48...@googlegroups.com>,

<mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
>I see you've found the answer, but "A Case of Conscience" by Blish is not only
>relevant, but contains a foreword considering possible cases foreseen by Catholic
>theologians and considered consistent with their beliefs:
>
>a) Inhabited by sentient creatures, but without souls; so to be treated with
>compassion but extra-evangelically
>
>b) Inhabited by sentient creatures with fallen souls, through an original but not
>inevitable ancestral sin; so to be evangelized with urgent missionary charity.
>
>c) Inhabited by sentient soul-endowed creatures that have not fallen... (basically
>try and learn from them)

C. S. Lewis had a fourth possibility: Sentient creatures who have
fallen, but whose mode of redemption is very much different from
ours. Lewis also expressed ... a great deal of pessimism ... that
humans would be able to tell the various options apart.

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

[Lynn McGuire]

On 1/12/2018 3:15 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <1f4c89e0-3659-4f48...@googlegroups.com>,
> <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
>> I see you've found the answer, but "A Case of Conscience" by Blish is not only
>> relevant, but contains a foreword considering possible cases foreseen by Catholic
>> theologians and considered consistent with their beliefs:
>>
>> a) Inhabited by sentient creatures, but without souls; so to be treated with
>> compassion but extra-evangelically
>>
>> b) Inhabited by sentient creatures with fallen souls, through an original but not
>> inevitable ancestral sin; so to be evangelized with urgent missionary charity.
>>
>> c) Inhabited by sentient soul-endowed creatures that have not fallen... (basically
>> try and learn from them)
>
> C. S. Lewis had a fourth possibility: Sentient creatures who have
> fallen, but whose mode of redemption is very much different from
> ours. Lewis also expressed ... a great deal of pessimism ... that
> humans would be able to tell the various options apart.

C. S. Lewis also called interstellar distances "God's Quarantine system".

Lynn

[Kevrob]

Here's a story springboard.

Astronauts land on a planet. They figure out (one's a theology
student as well as a scientist) that this world has also Fallen,
but its savior failed in its mission.

The Antichrist won.

Kevin R

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:5c8a30fb-e640-4dd6...@googlegroups.com:

Sounds like any of a number - nearly all - badly written post
apocalyptic revent fantaies.

Lynn would love it.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Lynn McGuire]

Sounds like a Heinlein book.

Lynn

[Patok]

Kevrob wrote:
>
> Here's a story springboard.
>
> Astronauts land on a planet. They figure out (one's a theology
> student as well as a scientist) that this world has also Fallen,
> but its savior failed in its mission.
>
> The Antichrist won.

What would be the criteria to decide one or the other? (Being a native atheist,
I'm quite ignorant in theology.) For example, if such an alien expedition were
to land on Earth today, what would the aliens decide? Is Earth Fallen or not,
and has the Antichrist won or not, and why?

--
"Питат ли ме дей зората - шат на патката главата."

[Robert Carnegie]

There's C. S. Lewis of course
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Silent_Planet>

His <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perelandra>
or _Voyage to Venus_ has human life originating independently
(ish) on the second planet, and deals with whether another
"Fall" - human "original sin" - will happen there.

[Kevrob]

On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 5:22:43 AM UTC-5, Patok wrote:
> Kevrob wrote:
> >
> > Here's a story springboard.
> >
> > Astronauts land on a planet. They figure out (one's a theology
> > student as well as a scientist) that this world has also Fallen,
> > but its savior failed in its mission.
> >
> > The Antichrist won.
>
> What would be the criteria to decide one or the other? (Being a native atheist,
> I'm quite ignorant in theology.)

I'm an atheist, but raised Catholic. I don't think we live in a
fallen world.

> For example, if such an alien expedition were
> to land on Earth today, what would the aliens decide?

You've turned my thought experiment upside down. I was
supposing Terran astronauts visiting another world.

> Is Earth Fallen or not,
> and has the Antichrist won or not, and why?

In that case, it would depend on the aliens' philosophy and,
if they have any, their theology. The concept of the latter
might be something totally outside their experience.

> "Питат ли ме дей зората - шат на патката главата."

I've no proficiency in....Bulgarian?

Kevin R

[Quadibloc]

You were right. Google Translate has it as: "They ask me the dawn - the head of the duck". Ah, the second half has an alternate translation that is a bit more salty.

John Savard

[Kevrob]

There's a troll in another newsgroup I frequent who
likes to insult people in Russian, written in Cyrillic
characters. I thought this was he, and checked Google
Translate, which suggested Bulgarian. I don't know
if Google got that right, or not.

Kevin R

[Patok]

Kevrob wrote:
> On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 5:22:43 AM UTC-5, Patok wrote:
>> Kevrob wrote:
>>> Here's a story springboard.
>>>
>>> Astronauts land on a planet. They figure out (one's a theology
>>> student as well as a scientist) that this world has also Fallen,
>>> but its savior failed in its mission.
>>>
>>> The Antichrist won.
>> What would be the criteria to decide one or the other? (Being a native atheist,
>> I'm quite ignorant in theology.)
>
> I'm an atheist, but raised Catholic. I don't think we live in a
> fallen world.

I'll take your word for it. Being raised a Catholic gives you a head start in
understanding such things.

>> For example, if such an alien expedition were
>> to land on Earth today, what would the aliens decide?
>
> You've turned my thought experiment upside down. I was
> supposing Terran astronauts visiting another world.

Well yes, but before understanding aliens, we should first understand
ourselves. Let me rework the thought experiment - what if it was not aliens, but
humans from a parallel Earth? My point is, how would current Earth rate in a
not-too-alien world view? (The raters must be ignorant of our history, but not
too different otherwise, you are right that aliens stretches it too much.)

>> Is Earth Fallen or not,
>> and has the Antichrist won or not, and why?
>
> In that case, it would depend on the aliens' philosophy and,
> if they have any, their theology. The concept of the latter
> might be something totally outside their experience.

Indeed.

>> "Питат ли ме дей зората - шат на патката главата."
>
> I've no proficiency in....Bulgarian?

Right.

--

[Patok]

The correct translation is "If they ask me where the dawn is - hack the head
of the duck". As to the saltier version, replace "duck" with another fowl,
ending in "..ck" too, and you'll get it.
(For the curious, the phrase is a quote from a post-communist satirical song,
here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMOzXhZFjaU)

--

[Robert Carnegie]

I misremembered the conclusion of _The Silent Stars Go By_
by James White.

The colony sleep-ship launched from an alternate Earth -
crewed by the un-reformed Catholic Church IIRC, with a
Macchiavellian monsignor - discovers an alien population
whose manifest destiny may or may not be to be wiped out
by the humans, but they are politely interested in
Christian teaching. Possible sainthood is mentioned,
with no explicit suggestion of the traditional martyrdom.

Then three people remaining on board the ship pull a
heretical faster-than-light drive out of - necessity
(right at the end of the story), and zap straight back
to Earth.

But they get to "our" Earth instead of theirs.

And I thought I remembered them anxiously radio-phoning
the Vatican, but that's wrong. Actually they want to
report to the court of the High King at Tara.
In Ireland, obvs.

Is there another story where the Vatican thing happens?
Maybe from Dan Brown? Perhaps his next one? That /might/
make me actually read one!

[D B Davis]

Martyrdom is not mandatory for sainthood. The feast of Saint Anthony of
Egypt is celebrated in a couple of days.
He wrote a biography named _Life of Anthony_ [1]. St Anthony was the
"father" of Christian monasticism. He died in his desert hermitage at
the ripe old age of 105.

Note.

1. https://archive.org/details/AthanLifeAntony

Thank you,

--
Don

[Robert Carnegie]

The four Evangelists wrote books too, and I guess they got
to be Saint just for that. Or do you happen to know if they
were martyred as well? Anyway, no, I wasn't calling it
compulsory. Although it does seem to help.
,

[D B Davis]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 15 January 2018 16:09:23 UTC, D B Davis wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> Martyrdom is not mandatory for sainthood. The feast of Saint Anthony of
>> Egypt is celebrated in a couple of days.
>> He wrote a biography named _Life of Anthony_ [1]. St Anthony was the
>> "father" of Christian monasticism. He died in his desert hermitage at
>> the ripe old age of 105.
>>
>> Note.
>>
>> 1. https://archive.org/details/AthanLifeAntony
>
> The four Evangelists wrote books too, and I guess they got
> to be Saint just for that. Or do you happen to know if they
> were martyred as well? Anyway, no, I wasn't calling it
> compulsory. Although it does seem to help.
> ,

They're all saints. Mark, Luke, and Matthew were martyred. John was
exiled, but not martyred.
Father Jacques Hamel's 2016 martyrdom in 2016 at first seemed like
an outlier to me. It seemed as though the world had evolved beyond such
atrocities. Unfortunately, no, about 6,900 Catholic clergy were killed
in the Terror Roja alone.
Today's MLK day in America. The world desperately needs to embrace
MLK's nonviolence because violence only begets more violence and nothing
ever changes.

Thank you,

--
Don

[Kevrob]

On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 8:25:03 PM UTC-5, D B Davis wrote:

> Today's MLK day in America. The world desperately needs to embrace
> MLK's nonviolence because violence only begets more violence and nothing
> ever changes.

Last I checked The Rev Mr MLK Jr advocated the use of state power
to effect social change. Seems to me that involves the use of force,
or the threat to use force.

Kevin R

[Quadibloc]

Perhaps the answer is to draw a distinction between "force" and
"violence".

However, we can dispose of one candidate distinction right away. Coercive
force used by government does hurt people, so while gravity and
electromagnetism are non-violent, we are speaking of a sort of force less
separated from violence than that.

As it happens, Margaret Atwood and the #MeToo movement, currently in the
news, provide an illustrative example of the issue involved.

Vigilantism is often deplored. When it is the last resort of people
denied justice and protection, it's hard for me to be completely against
it. But it certainly does have the drawback that it does not provide the
accused with *due process*. It has the potential to be indiscriminate.

And so, when one _has_ a functioning democracy, where the majority of the
voters *can* be won over to caring about black people and recognizing
them as equals,

acting in a personally non-violent way in order to get control of the
existing mechanism of state power

may be regarded as a superior option to personal armed activity, which
will instead do things like provoke a defensive response from state
authority, taint the justice of one's cause by injuring innocent victims,
polarize public opinion, and so on and so forth.

So we can now see that by viewing things in a practical light, instead of
viewing "non-violence" as an absolute abstract principle, the statement
of D. B. Davis to which you replied has meaning and validity.

However, its range of validity does *not* include the case where one
*does not have* a functioning democratic government, or where one is
dealing with a solid majority in favor of continued inequality and
discrimination - as we can see by examining the cases where non-violence
worked. In India, there was the British government; in the United States
there was the Federal government.

So I avoid having to try to claim that wars or civil wars are non-
violent, which would fail.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

Seems to me that those two things are different.

[Kevrob]

Protester: "Integrate your lunch counter, Mr Woolworth."

Mr Woolworth: "No. Please leave."

In Real World history, Mr W calls the cops, and the state
uses force, or its threat, against the sitters-in.

Passive resistance on private property compels the owner,
failing his ability to convince the protesters to leave,
to use force or call in the state to do so, in order that
he may enjoy his property unmolested by trespassers.

In current civil rights law, the cops wouldn't be called to
make Mr Woolworth serve a cheeseburger, but the protesters
can sue for damages, and if one loses and fails to pay,
force can be used to collect the award.

I dislike invidious discrimination, but I don't pretend I
have the right to compel someone else to not be a bigot.
I'd just avoid that lunchcounter. Free societies allow
the freedom to be a non-predatory asshole.

Kevin R

[David Johnston]

So then you'd avoid all the good lunch counters?

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:p3lo4c$2g3$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

Are you claiming that only white people run good restaurants?

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:4c3856b0-d302-4daf...@googlegroups.com:

You really don't have much of a clue about the civil rights
movement, do you? No, you don't. (The government's use of force was
invariably in response to actual violent, often *by* government
forces at the state and local level. Go do some reading about James
Meredith. Or any of the riots - by police, against peaceful
protestors on public property.)

Would you "avoid that doctor" who happens to be the only nearby
expert in your soon-to-be-fatal medical condition because he
doesn't like people with your skin color? Would you "avoid that
pharmacy," the only one in town, because they don't believe in
filling prescriptions for people with your skin color? Would you
"avoid that high paying job" that you can't get because you didn't
go to a prestigious university because they don't admit people with
your skin color?

Or are you a hypocrite?

[Scott Lurndal]

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in

>>
>> I dislike invidious discrimination, but I don't pretend I
>> have the right to compel someone else to not be a bigot.
>> I'd just avoid that lunchcounter. Free societies allow
>> the freedom to be a non-predatory asshole.

[snip]

>Would you "avoid that doctor" who happens to be the only nearby
>expert in your soon-to-be-fatal medical condition because he
>doesn't like people with your skin color?

Or doesn't like your choice of gender, or partner, or doesn't
think you're attractive enough, or thinks you are too overweight
or.... The RFRA really is bad, bad policy that Bill Clinton should
have vetoed.

[Kevrob]

You don't know what I know, and what I don't know.
You just engaged the transmission on your ever-running
asshole engine.

> (The government's use of force was
> invariably in response to actual violent, often *by* government
> forces at the state and local level.

I would have been, as were many authentically liberal people
of that time, in favor of the Federal and State governments
being race-neutral in their administration of justice, and
in the management of any other institutions owned and/or operated
by state, local or Federal government. I consider the post-Civil
War amendments and the guarantee of a republican form of government
to require such neutrality.

States calling out the militia to intimidate peaceful protest
on public property, or calling out the cops to do same, was an
old tactic used against the labor movement, then against civil
rights protests. In the days before repeating rifles, the
militia considered a mass of people - the mob, as it would have
been called - to be a serious threat. They might flee at a
bayonet charge, but they might come armed with clubs, billhooks
or other tools that could be sharpened into makeshift pikes.
And, as the military folks say, "quantity has a quality of its
own." Any unit seriously outnumbered could be stampeded by a
sufficiently large enough mob.

> Go do some reading about James Meredith.

Who was a citizen of MS trying to use state facilities just
like any other citizen, which, the question of the existence
of state-owned educational institutions aside, he should have
been allowed to do.

> Or any of the riots by police, against peaceful
> protestors on public property.)

And my Woolworth's example was explicitly described as one
happening on private property, not government's. If it were
the lunch counter space in the county courthouse, of course
non-discrimination should have been a condition of the lease.

I would have been, as were many authentically liberal people
of that time, in favor of the Federal and State governments
being race-neutral in their administration of justice, and
in the management of any other institutions owned and/or operated
by state, local or Federal government. I consider the post-Civil
War amendments and the guarantee of a republican form of government
to require such neutrality.

> Would you "avoid that doctor" who happens to be the only nearby
> expert in your soon-to-be-fatal medical condition because he
> doesn't like people with your skin color?

You are arguing a "lifeboat condition" - edge cases that almost
NEVER occur in the real world.

> Would you "avoid that pharmacy,"
> the only one in town, because they don't believe in
> filling prescriptions for people with your skin color?

One condition that private businesses could be made to agree
with in order to get government contracts is non-discrimination.

Goodbye to filling prescriptions for the armed forces members
at the local base using Tricare/CHAMPUS. Same for Medicare payments,
or Medicaid. Roadside diners and gas stations on the interstate
that lease space from the state have to agree to non-discrimination, too.
A Federal law requiring that of state public facilities would have been
fine with me.

> Would you
> "avoid that high paying job" that you can't get because you didn't
> go to a prestigious university because they don't admit people with
> your skin color?
>

Even pre-WWII some universities enrolled people of color, and
religious minorities, where some wouldn't. If a private university
wanted to kiss all government funding goodbye and maintain bars
to enrolling people of certain backgrounds, I'd let it. I don't
imagine it would keep its prestige for very long, as the schools
that accepted folks from all over.

> Or are you a hypocrite?

I don't support government involvement in education, and
even when it was more expensive to do so, when the money was
coming out of my own pocket, I stuck with private schooling.
I try to "walk the walk." I just don't see trying to solve
social problems by coercion as the moral, or even the most
practical path. 50+ years after the Civil Rights Acts of the
1960s, the country is still divided racially: residentially,
politically, by religious sect, and culturally. Arguably,
trying to achieve the goal by voluntarism might have been
more successful and created less resentment and entitlement.
(On all sides.)

One wonders if white bigots refuse to use highly qualified
medical practitioners whose skin tone or accents freak them
out. They would be punishing themselves, in that case.

Kevin R

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:W9u7C.249531
$Xx7.1...@fx16.iad:

There's a point there, but yeah, a bad response to it. That hasn't
had that much effect, since it only applies to federal law (you can't
blame Clinton for state versions of it).

Can you name a religion that requires its adherents to not do
business with ugly people? Enquiring minds want to know.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:c4f850db-ad0c-43b2...@googlegroups.com:

I can only speculate based on what you post. It is possible, of
course, that you're just making shit up for the hell of it, but I
gave you the benefit of the doubt.

> You just engaged the transmission on your ever-running
> asshole engine.

You said something stupid. I'm very predictable. If you weren't an
idiot, I would assume that's what you *wanted*.

>
>> (The government's use of force was
>> invariably in response to actual violent, often *by* government
>> forces at the state and local level.
>
> I would have been, as were many authentically liberal people

Only *real* Scotsmen here!

> of that time, in favor of the Federal and State governments
> being race-neutral in their administration of justice, and
> in the management of any other institutions owned and/or
> operated by state, local or Federal government. I consider the
> post-Civil War amendments and the guarantee of a republican form
> of government to require such neutrality.
>
> States calling out the militia to intimidate peaceful protest
> on public property, or calling out the cops to do same, was an
> old tactic used against the labor movement, then against civil
> rights protests. In the days before repeating rifles, the
> militia considered a mass of people - the mob, as it would have
> been called - to be a serious threat. They might flee at a
> bayonet charge, but they might come armed with clubs, billhooks
> or other tools that could be sharpened into makeshift pikes.
> And, as the military folks say, "quantity has a quality of its
> own." Any unit seriously outnumbered could be stampeded by a
> sufficiently large enough mob.

None of which has fuckall to do with the current conversation, of
course.

>
>> Go do some reading about James Meredith.
>
> Who was a citizen of MS trying to use state facilities just
> like any other citizen, which, the question of the existence
> of state-owned educational institutions aside, he should have
> been allowed to do.

Indeed. That was Meredith's entire point.

And he wouldn't have been without federal troops - the Big Red One,
in fact - to enforce the court ruling. Bobby Kennedey called up the
MIssissippi National Guard specfically to keep the Governor from
being able to use them. Had he not, that could well have been the
first battle of the second American Civil War. (Basically, he got
the court order, and Ol' Miss' administration (and the governor)
said, "You and what Army?" So he went and got one.)

>
>> Or any of the riots by police, against peaceful
>> protestors on public property.)
>
> And my Woolworth's example was explicitly described as one
> happening on private property, not government's.

You seem to be suffering from the delusion that there's "private
property" and "public property," and that it's an entirely binary
equation. It's not. There's private property and there's private
property with public accomodations, and the law treats them very,
very differently.

> If it were
> the lunch counter space in the county courthouse, of course
> non-discrimination should have been a condition of the lease.
>
> I would have been, as were many authentically liberal people
> of that time, in favor of the Federal and State governments
> being race-neutral in their administration of justice, and
> in the management of any other institutions owned and/or
> operated by state, local or Federal government. I consider the
> post-Civil War amendments and the guarantee of a republican form
> of government to require such neutrality.
>
>> Would you "avoid that doctor" who happens to be the only nearby
>> expert in your soon-to-be-fatal medical condition because he
>> doesn't like people with your skin color?
>
> You are arguing a "lifeboat condition" - edge cases that almost
> NEVER occur in the real world.

You are completely, totally full of shit at this poing. It *does*
happen, often enough for it to be easy to find the lawsuits that
result (and their outcome).

>
>> Would you "avoid that pharmacy,"
>> the only one in town, because they don't believe in
>> filling prescriptions for people with your skin color?
>
> One condition that private businesses could be made to agree
> with in order to get government contracts is non-discrimination.

How many small town pharmacies get government contracts? Seriously,
dude, you're an idiot.

>
> Goodbye to filling prescriptions for the armed forces members
> at the local base using Tricare/CHAMPUS.

If the soldiers are using the local pharmacy to fill their
prescriptions, it's likely because there isn't anywhere else to go.
So they don't get them filled _at all_. That sounds like an
improvement.

> Same for Medicare
> payments, or Medicaid.

Now you've got old people dying for no reason. Old people who vote.

Retarded shit like this is why liberals lose elections. Seriously.

> Roadside diners and gas stations on the
> interstate that lease space from the state have to agree to
> non-discrimination, too. A Federal law requiring that of state
> public facilities would have been fine with me.

Because you're an idiot who has never lived in the rural south, or
anywhere near it. Those people don't *want* the outside money, or
anything else from the outside world, and will - literally -
cheerfully let you die rather than change their ways. In fact, many
of them *want* you do die, and would happily help you along if they
could get away with it.

>
>> Would you
>> "avoid that high paying job" that you can't get because you
>> didn't go to a prestigious university because they don't admit
>> people with your skin color?
>>
>
> Even pre-WWII some universities enrolled people of color, and
> religious minorities, where some wouldn't.

And? You still can't get that high paying job because you couldn't
go to the right university that *doesn't*.

> If a private
> university wanted to kiss all government funding goodbye and
> maintain bars to enrolling people of certain backgrounds, I'd
> let it.

Because you clearly don't give a shit about minorities.

> I don't imagine it would keep its prestige for very
> long, as the schools that accepted folks from all over.

Another subject you know nothing about.

>
>> Or are you a hypocrite?
>
> I don't support government involvement in education, and
> even when it was more expensive to do so, when the money was
> coming out of my own pocket, I stuck with private schooling.
> I try to "walk the walk." I just don't see trying to solve
> social problems by coercion as the moral, or even the most
> practical path. 50+ years after the Civil Rights Acts of the
> 1960s, the country is still divided racially: residentially,
> politically, by religious sect, and culturally. Arguably,
> trying to achieve the goal by voluntarism might have been
> more successful and created less resentment and entitlement.
> (On all sides.)
>
> One wonders if white bigots refuse to use highly qualified
> medical practitioners whose skin tone or accents freak them
> out. They would be punishing themselves, in that case.
>

You're more of a racist psychopath than the neo-nazis are. They, at
least, know they're murderous psychopaths. The cost in human lives
for goverhnemts that operate by your ideals is measures in the
hundreds of millions.

You, personally, are the reason why liberals lose elections.

[Kevrob]

"Liberal" has become a term of art. I would have been referring
to "classical liberals" - pre-New Deal, Pre-Progressive,
free enterprise loving, slavery-hating, Old Whig-style "liberal."
Your Menckens, not your Crolys.

..and Eisenhower used Fededral troops to enforce a court order to
desegregate in Little Rock, which was fine by me.

None of this refers to using state or federal force against
private citizens exercising their civil right to enjoy their private
property as they please.

> >> Or any of the riots by police, against peaceful
> >> protestors on public property.)
> >
> > And my Woolworth's example was explicitly described as one
> > happening on private property, not government's.
>
> You seem to be suffering from the delusion that there's "private
> property" and "public property," and that it's an entirely binary
> equation. It's not. There's private property and there's private
> property with public accomodations,

I'm familiar with the "public accommodations" theory, and that
governments use it. I just don't agree with it, except and unless
the owner of the firm agrees to act under those limitations, as in
the case of contracting to do business on government property,
or in order to be a vendor to the government. And I have no problem
with the Feds imposing those conditions on the states, even if they
aren't getting aid, under the republican government guarantee clause.

> and the law treats them very, very differently.

Unjustly so, IMNSHO.

Almost all of them have Medicare and Medicaid customers.

> > Goodbye to filling prescriptions for the armed forces members
> > at the local base using Tricare/CHAMPUS.
>
> If the soldiers are using the local pharmacy to fill their
> prescriptions, it's likely because there isn't anywhere else to go.
> So they don't get them filled _at all_. That sounds like an
> improvement.
>

Tricare is for dependents as well as serving military members,
some reservists, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricare

> > Same for Medicare
> > payments, or Medicaid.
>
> Now you've got old people dying for no reason. Old people who vote.
>

Do you think a pharmacy could be profitable nowadays turning
down that business?

> Retarded shit like this is why liberals lose elections. Seriously.
>

If you want to accuse me of losing elections, go right ahead,
but I have made no secret of the fact that I vote Libertarian.

> > Roadside diners and gas stations on the
> > interstate that lease space from the state have to agree to
> > non-discrimination, too. A Federal law requiring that of state
> > public facilities would have been fine with me.
>
> Because you're an idiot who has never lived in the rural south, or
> anywhere near it.

I spent a winter living north of Clearwater, FL, but, as you say,
not the real rural south. My work took me a few places inland,
where they still had orange groves and a plant to convert the
fruit to concentrate, but not anything like you are alluding to.

> Those people don't *want* the outside money, or
> anything else from the outside world, and will - literally -
> cheerfully let you die rather than change their ways. In fact, many
> of them *want* you do die, and would happily help you along if they
> could get away with it.
> >

In which case, had my route been followed, their refusal to
get with the program would have prevented the "New South" and
the relative prosperity all the refugees from the Rust Belt
(and their money) brought.

> >> Would you
> >> "avoid that high paying job" that you can't get because you
> >> didn't go to a prestigious university because they don't admit
> >> people with your skin color?
> >>
> >
> > Even pre-WWII some universities enrolled people of color, and
> > religious minorities, where some wouldn't.
>
> And? You still can't get that high paying job because you couldn't
> go to the right university that *doesn't*.
>
> > If a private
> > university wanted to kiss all government funding goodbye and
> > maintain bars to enrolling people of certain backgrounds, I'd
> > let it.
>
> Because you clearly don't give a shit about minorities.
>

Because I don't want to use force to level the playing field.
We've tried that and, in many ways, it hasn't worked.

> > I don't imagine it would keep its prestige for very
> > long, as the schools that accepted folks from all over.
>
> Another subject you know nothing about.
> >


> >> Or are you a hypocrite?
> >
> > I don't support government involvement in education, and
> > even when it was more expensive to do so, when the money was
> > coming out of my own pocket, I stuck with private schooling.
> > I try to "walk the walk." I just don't see trying to solve
> > social problems by coercion as the moral, or even the most
> > practical path. 50+ years after the Civil Rights Acts of the
> > 1960s, the country is still divided racially: residentially,
> > politically, by religious sect, and culturally. Arguably,
> > trying to achieve the goal by voluntarism might have been
> > more successful and created less resentment and entitlement.
> > (On all sides.)
> >
> > One wonders if white bigots refuse to use highly qualified
> > medical practitioners whose skin tone or accents freak them
> > out. They would be punishing themselves, in that case.
> >
> You're more of a racist psychopath than the neo-nazis are. They, at
> least, know they're murderous psychopaths. The cost in human lives
> for goverhnemts that operate by your ideals is measures in the
> hundreds of millions.

So, because I think Federal, state and local governments should
be race-neutral, I'm a bigot. I don't want to discriminate on
the basis of irrelevant quantities, but because I don't want to
force private actors with different opinions to act the way other
people think they should, I'm a bigot. Sure.

> You, personally, are the reason why liberals lose elections.

Meh. Since I don't vote for people that the conservatives
excoriate as "liberals," I doubt it, other than that the
Dems have trouble winning my vote, as do the GOP>

Kevin R

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 12:39:32 PM UTC-7, Kevrob wrote:

> I dislike invidious discrimination, but I don't pretend I
> have the right to compel someone else to not be a bigot.

It has been found in practice that bigotry was so common in certain
areas of the United States that unless coercive state power *was* used
to compel people not to be bigots, the lives of black people living in
those areas would be seriously circumscribed.

Justice demands that if a child happens to be born with skin that is
brown instead of pink, this will not diminish the quality of that
child's life.

And those who choose, by their wicked acts, to attempt to stand in the
way of justice being served... may end up the worse for it.

I fail to see why I should care. I care about the innocent, not the
wicked.

Freedom is for everyone, not just for some - and it's not as if there
are government-run shops and restaurants to cater to one's every need,
at least not in most free societies.

It is true that in theory, a private individual doesn't become a
government contractor simply because he does business with the public,
and so he shouldn't lose the ability to exercise his personal
preferences.

In practice, even in the absence of segregation laws that *forbade*
restaurant operators from serving both races on the same premises,
stores that admitted blacks were subject to *boycotts* by their
potential white customers. This is why the situation got so bad that
the government had to interfere with the free market.

As Santayana said - those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:39:27 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

Assholery often is just a disguise for stupidity, which can't be
fixed. I am reminded of the Dennys in Maryland that refused to
provide service to a table full of black guys. After a while they
became annoyed, whipped out their Secret Service badges and started
taking names.

[Quadibloc]

As you noted earlier in your post, the word "liberal" has more than
one meaning these days.

However, while he seems to have confounded the two of them, I do
think it can be noted that classical liberals lose even more
elections than progressives who are also called liberals.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:46:26 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

I have to ask, how many elections have Libertarians _not_ lost in the
US?

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 3:12:11 PM UTC-7, Kevrob wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 4:10:05 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> > Would you "avoid that doctor" who happens to be the only nearby
> > expert in your soon-to-be-fatal medical condition because he
> > doesn't like people with your skin color?

> You are arguing a "lifeboat condition" - edge cases that almost
> NEVER occur in the real world.

...um, and let's read ahead a bit

> One wonders if white bigots refuse to use highly qualified
> medical practitioners whose skin tone or accents freak them
> out. They would be punishing themselves, in that case.

Actually, in the part of the real world under discussion - the Deep
South from, say, 1920 to 1950, it is the latter case that wouldn't
occur much in the real world.

There just weren't that many medical schools there that admitted
black people, and this was before the age of "non-traditional
immigration" where you might go to your local walk-in clinic and
find that more than half the doctors were East Indian.

In that time and place, just about all the doctors where white -
and indeed, all the decently-equipped hospitals didn't admit
blacks.

Now, you _could_, by limiting the scope of your statements, make a
possibly valid argument that today's anti-discrimination laws are a
relic of the past, and are *no longer necessary* in the United
States of *today*. But if you argue that they're wrong in
principle, across all times and places, you meet the fact that
there was a time when they were desperately needed. One that many
Americans still remember - from their knowledge of history, if not
from personal experience.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 7:34:41 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

> In that time and place, just about all the doctors where white -
> and indeed, all the decently-equipped hospitals didn't admit
> blacks.

For example, there is the death of the musician Willie Johnson
from malarial fever, as no hospital in his area would admit him.

John Savard

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:1a3d58ba-272b-46a5...@googlegroups.com:

And yet, you chose the word "authentically," not "classical."

Still confused about the difference between private property and
private property with public accomodations, I see. Not surprings.
You choose to be ignorant of the difference.

>
>> >> Or any of the riots by police, against peaceful
>> >> protestors on public property.)
>> >
>> > And my Woolworth's example was explicitly described as one
>> > happening on private property, not government's.
>>
>> You seem to be suffering from the delusion that there's
>> "private property" and "public property," and that it's an
>> entirely binary equation. It's not. There's private property
>> and there's private property with public accomodations,
>
> I'm familiar with the "public accommodations" theory, and that
> governments use it. I just don't agree with it, except and
> unless the owner of the firm agrees to act under those
> limitations, as in the case of contracting to do business on
> government property, or in order to be a vendor to the
> government.

And that's why liberals lose elections. Because you're moonbats.

--
Terry Austin

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:d1e5a9cb-8362-4c86...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 4:46:30 PM UTC-7, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 5:36:24 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
>> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> > You, personally, are the reason why liberals lose elections.
>
>> Meh. Since I don't vote for people that the conservatives
>> excoriate as "liberals," I doubt it, other than that the
>> Dems have trouble winning my vote, as do the GOP>
>
> As you noted earlier in your post, the word "liberal" has more
> than one meaning these days.

But only *he* is an "authentic" liberal. All the rest are fake.

Heh.

>
> However, while he seems to have confounded the two of them, I do
> think it can be noted that classical liberals lose even more
> elections than progressives who are also called liberals.
>

His attitude is actually closer to libertoonian (with a small "l",
not the full blown big "L," should be kept in a rubber room
Libertoonians).

--
Terry Austin

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Learn to snip, retard.

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1tct5d1c32svbl48d...@4ax.com:

> I have to ask, how many elections have Libertarians _not_ lost
> in the US?

Hundreds, apparently, but never above the state level.

"By the end of 2009, 146 Libertarians were holding elected offices"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

--
Terry Austin

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:22f79a68-4c5e-4a1c...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 3:12:11 PM UTC-7, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 4:10:05 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
>> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> > Would you "avoid that doctor" who happens to be the only
>> > nearby expert in your soon-to-be-fatal medical condition
>> > because he doesn't like people with your skin color?
>
>> You are arguing a "lifeboat condition" - edge cases that almost
>> NEVER occur in the real world.
>
> ...um, and let's read ahead a bit
>
>> One wonders if white bigots refuse to use highly qualified
>> medical practitioners whose skin tone or accents freak them
>> out. They would be punishing themselves, in that case.
>
> Actually, in the part of the real world under discussion - the
> Deep South from, say, 1920 to 1950, it is the latter case that
> wouldn't occur much in the real world.
>
> There just weren't that many medical schools there that admitted
> black people, and this was before the age of "non-traditional
> immigration" where you might go to your local walk-in clinic and
> find that more than half the doctors were East Indian.

There are cases of people refusing transfusions from people who
aren't white. Some people *would* rather die than be infected by
dirty mud people.

--
Terry Austin

[David Johnston]

On 2018-01-16 3:12 PM, Kevrob wrote:

>> Would you "avoid that doctor" who happens to be the only nearby
>> expert in your soon-to-be-fatal medical condition because he
>> doesn't like people with your skin color?
>
> You are arguing a "lifeboat condition" - edge cases that almost
> NEVER occur in the real world

Now. But they used to be quite routine. Guess why that changed.

[J. Clarke]

If he doesn't like people of your skin color then you can not avoid
him all you want to, that doesn't mean that he'll treat you.

[David Johnston]

His opinion might not matter if the hospital wouldn't let certain people
in in the first place.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:2fmt5d1eicrgl3e7u...@4ax.com:

But the threat of losing his license, and everything he owns, means
he probably will.

[Mike Van Pelt]

In article <XnsA86CC5EDEE1E8...@69.16.179.42>,

Ninapenda Jibini <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>There are cases of people refusing transfusions from people who
>aren't white. Some people *would* rather die than be infected by
>dirty mud people.

Think of it as evolution in action.

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

m...@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt) wrote in news:zOP7C.433194
$oY6....@fx26.iad:

> In article <XnsA86CC5EDEE1E8...@69.16.179.42>,
> Ninapenda Jibini <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>There are cases of people refusing transfusions from people who
>>aren't white. Some people *would* rather die than be infected by
>>dirty mud people.
>
> Think of it as evolution in action.
>

It's not evolution if they've already had kids. (And you and I will
pay for the welfare to raise those kids.)

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Joy Beeson]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:36:48 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> Anyway, no, I wasn't calling it
> compulsory. Although it does seem to help.

To be a saint, you have to be dead.
Martyrdom would speed up the process.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[Kevrob]

On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 10:17:50 PM UTC-5, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:36:48 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, no, I wasn't calling it
> > compulsory. Although it does seem to help.
>
> To be a saint, you have to be dead.

Nope. Every believer alive is supposed to, possibly, be a saint.
They aren't _declared_ to be "officially" saints until after death,
and, in Catholicism, the whole process of canonization.

Paul to the Ephesians, 1:1:

[quote]

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to
the holy ones who are [in Ephesus]....

[/quote] - http://www.usccb.org/bible/ephesians/1

The KJV has "holy ones" as "saints."

The Vulgate has:

[quote]

Paulus Apostolus Jesu Christi per voluntatem Dei,
omnibus sanctis qui sunt Ephesi,

[/quote] - http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/eph001.htm

"Omnibus sanctis" is "all of the holy (ones)."

"saint" is just the Latin "sanctus," strained through French.

I like Bierce's "A dead sinner revised and edited."

The Mormons call themselves "Latter-Day Saints" in the same
way Paul called his sucke...(er,).....congregants "saints."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/saint

> Martyrdom would speed up the process.

Martyrs jump to the front of the canonization line.

Kevin R

(Apostate raised Catholic: apply NaCl as you deem necessary)

[David DeLaney]

On 2018-01-14, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 January 2018 10:22:43 UTC, Patok wrote:
>> Kevrob wrote:
>> > Here's a story springboard.
>> >
>> > Astronauts land on a planet. They figure out (one's a theology
>> > student as well as a scientist) that this world has also Fallen,
>> > but its savior failed in its mission.
>> >
>> > The Antichrist won.
>>
>> What would be the criteria to decide one or the other? (Being a native
atheist,
>> I'm quite ignorant in theology.) For example, if such an alien expedition
were
>> to land on Earth today, what would the aliens decide? Is Earth Fallen or not,
>> and has the Antichrist won or not, and why?
>
> There's C. S. Lewis of course
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Silent_Planet>
>
> His <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perelandra>
> or _Voyage to Venus_ has human life originating independently
> (ish) on the second planet, and deals with whether another
> "Fall" - human "original sin" - will happen there.

Diane Duane's Young Wizards series also explores this theme; every sentient
race, early on in their development, gets a visit from the Shadow, the Lone
Power Who coaxed the other Powers into weaving death and entropy into the
worlds, and It tries to coax the race or its representative into Falling on
the spot. The protagonist's younger sister is involved in one such attempt -
these are APART from the Ordeal that every single new wizard undergoes, where
they meet and struggle with It - with surprising results, I think in ... let's
see ... okay, yeah, in book 3, _High Wizardry_.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.