info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Separation of church and state. Not
265 views
Skip to first unread message
JuanMotime
Apr 13, 2014, 12:07:06 PM4/13/14
to
James Beck
Apr 13, 2014, 4:38:04 PM4/13/14
to
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:07:06 -0400, JuanMotime
<JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USes-eUJqR4
How Abrahamic -or- Religious separatism in the US? Say it's not so.
For historical reference, in the West the separation of church and
state was Christian idea, not that that's necessarily meaningful.
Cults seem to favor Libertarianism ... at least until they're in
charge.
The old testament follows the development of society from the
individual through the family, tribe, nation, and finally kingdom. By
the time society reaches the latter two stages it accumulates a
substantial population of dissidents. While dissidents may lack
political power, eventually they may constitute a sufficient fraction
of the population or its wealth to demand that they be left alone. In
that context new testament announces the emergence of a dissident
cult.
The show (60 Minutes) exaggerated the extent to which the town has
gotten its own way with the federal courts and the New York
legislature however. The town has been compelled multiple times to
change their laws to comply with federal law, most notably with
respect to their failure to bear the cost of educating children with
special needs. If I recall correctly current litigation aims to strip
Kiryas Joel's municipal charter based on civil rights violations.
Kiryas Joel is mostly old news; however, it gives an excellent
counterexample to the brain-dead claim that education for females
automatically leads to low birth rates.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
<JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USes-eUJqR4
How Abrahamic -or- Religious separatism in the US? Say it's not so.
For historical reference, in the West the separation of church and
state was Christian idea, not that that's necessarily meaningful.
Cults seem to favor Libertarianism ... at least until they're in
charge.
The old testament follows the development of society from the
individual through the family, tribe, nation, and finally kingdom. By
the time society reaches the latter two stages it accumulates a
substantial population of dissidents. While dissidents may lack
political power, eventually they may constitute a sufficient fraction
of the population or its wealth to demand that they be left alone. In
that context new testament announces the emergence of a dissident
cult.
The show (60 Minutes) exaggerated the extent to which the town has
gotten its own way with the federal courts and the New York
legislature however. The town has been compelled multiple times to
change their laws to comply with federal law, most notably with
respect to their failure to bear the cost of educating children with
special needs. If I recall correctly current litigation aims to strip
Kiryas Joel's municipal charter based on civil rights violations.
Kiryas Joel is mostly old news; however, it gives an excellent
counterexample to the brain-dead claim that education for females
automatically leads to low birth rates.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Walter Bushell
Apr 17, 2014, 8:15:20 AM4/17/14
to
In article <kgolk99m39iepasgh...@4ax.com>,
James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USes-eUJqR4
Reminds me of the book _ Kiryas Joel and the Glory Hole_.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USes-eUJqR4
Reminds me of the book _ Kiryas Joel and the Glory Hole_.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
James Beck
Apr 18, 2014, 2:04:38 PM4/18/14
to
On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:15:20 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:
>In article <kgolk99m39iepasgh...@4ax.com>,
> James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USes-eUJqR4
>
>Reminds me of the book _ Kiryas Joel and the Glory Hole_.
In Williamsburg-Brooklynese 'Kiryas Joel' rhymes with 'mohel,' but I
guess that points down below, too.
wrote:
>In article <kgolk99m39iepasgh...@4ax.com>,
> James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USes-eUJqR4
>
>Reminds me of the book _ Kiryas Joel and the Glory Hole_.
guess that points down below, too.
JuanMotime
Apr 20, 2014, 3:30:02 PM4/20/14
to
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:07:06 -0400, JuanMotime
<JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USes-eUJqR4
Coursera has a pretty good course called "Practicing Tolerance in a
<JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USes-eUJqR4
Religious Society"
4.5 Ghettos
JuanMotime
Apr 23, 2014, 1:08:08 PM4/23/14
to
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:38:04 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:07:06 -0400, JuanMotime
><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USes-eUJqR4
>
>How Abrahamic -or- Religious separatism in the US? Say it's not so.
>
>For historical reference, in the West the separation of church and
So what exactly does "The West" mean to the world? Especially to the
old Ottoman Empire.
This course has defined "The West" to be global America.
www.coursera.org
The Modern World: Global History since 1760
Lecture 14.5 around 16:30 into the lecture.
wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:07:06 -0400, JuanMotime
><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USes-eUJqR4
>
>How Abrahamic -or- Religious separatism in the US? Say it's not so.
>
>For historical reference, in the West the separation of church and
old Ottoman Empire.
This course has defined "The West" to be global America.
www.coursera.org
The Modern World: Global History since 1760
Lecture 14.5 around 16:30 into the lecture.
James Beck
Apr 23, 2014, 7:20:59 PM4/23/14
to
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:08:08 -0400, JuanMotime
<JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:38:04 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:07:06 -0400, JuanMotime
>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USes-eUJqR4
>>
>>How Abrahamic -or- Religious separatism in the US? Say it's not so.
>>
>>For historical reference, in the West the separation of church and
>
>So what exactly does "The West" mean to the world? Especially to the
>old Ottoman Empire.
>
>This course has defined "The West" to be global America.
>www.coursera.org
>The Modern World: Global History since 1760
>
>Lecture 14.5 around 16:30 into the lecture.
There's certainly a sense in which 'the West' no longer means anything
<JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:38:04 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:07:06 -0400, JuanMotime
>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USes-eUJqR4
>>
>>How Abrahamic -or- Religious separatism in the US? Say it's not so.
>>
>>For historical reference, in the West the separation of church and
>
>So what exactly does "The West" mean to the world? Especially to the
>old Ottoman Empire.
>
>This course has defined "The West" to be global America.
>www.coursera.org
>The Modern World: Global History since 1760
>
>Lecture 14.5 around 16:30 into the lecture.
at all. Traditionally, it refers to Greco-Roman culture as influenced
by the rise of Judeo-Christianity, both of which were syncretic
Eqyptian/Greco-Egyptian mystery religions. The British Empire and the
other European colonial powers spread 'the West' around the globe.
Likewise, 'the Orient' moved east with colonial conquest. Hence the
anti-Occidental/Oriental phrase, 'The sun never sets on the British
Empire.'
The sun never sets on international trade today either but while the
US has had the largest national economy in the post-WWII era, there's
nothing unique about having global economic trading partners.
Consquently, I expect that only a Bush-Republican, US professor would
try to make 'the West' synonymous with American exceptionalism. I also
expect that his thesis would be greated with derision by anyone with a
decent classical education.
The fact remains that in the West, the notion of separation of church
and state arose from very early Christianity. It was first proclaimed
magisterially by Pope Gelasius in Duo Sunt (494), though Christian
separatism long pre-dated his proclamation ("Render unto Caesar").
Both Buddhist individualism and Taoist naturalism reached the same
idea much earlier.
Implicit in the demand for separation of church and state is the
development of inescapable political orbits. Otherwise, a separatist
tribe led by a priest-king could simply move their cultic theocracy
elsewhere, or perhaps declare independence or political autonomy on
one side of a geographic barrier like, for example, the Red Sea or the
Rocky Mountains.
The case of Gelasius shows that this can also work the other way. The
political capital moved across geographic barriers to Constantinople,
which was easily defendable where Rome was not. Gelasius refused to
bow to the politically subordinated Eastern Patriarch or to
acknowledge that the Patriarch's office had greater status than Rome,
Alexandria, or Antioch. The Byzantines certainly tried albeit
unsuccesfully to reimpose their will on Rome. On the other hand,
justifying schism in that way eventually backfired. If Rome can do it,
why can't Worms, Canterbury, or New York?
Then again, what sort of ego does it take to pretend that it was
really your idea all along? De jure separation of civil and religious
authority dates to the Merovingian dynasty, perhaps earlier. American
exceptionalism isn't then particularly exceptional. At best, American
exceptionalism is a consequence of 'the West.' It's certainly not the
well-spring of Western thought or it's repository.
[snip]
JuanMotime
Apr 24, 2014, 5:42:03 PM4/24/14
to
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:20:59 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
Here is another history course from Coursera course called "The
Emergence of the Modern Middle East"
Lecture 6.4
I can see here where Christians failed as late as 1932 in the
stabilization of Lebanon. It's a pretty interesting explanation from
one of their professors from Tel Aviv.
Emergence of the Modern Middle East"
Lecture 6.4
I can see here where Christians failed as late as 1932 in the
stabilization of Lebanon. It's a pretty interesting explanation from
one of their professors from Tel Aviv.
James Beck
Apr 25, 2014, 4:37:53 PM4/25/14
to
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:42:03 -0400, JuanMotime
Did he ask the obvious question, i.e. why was Libert�, Egalit�,
Fraternit� necessary in France, but Stabilit� sufficient for Lebanon?
Probably not, since asking that question naturally leads to the next
question, Stabilit� for whom?
Universal access to public equity, that is, the right of common men to
pool their wealth to form corporations and defend their collective
interests was a pre-Marxist innovation that arose from the French
Revolution. Like France, the US adopted collective economic rights
early on over the objections of the then-ruling landed aristocracy.
As legally constructed collective persons corporations carry enormous
advantages. They not only give savers and/or contributors the right to
own and/or direct equity resources, but the pooling of resources also
gives them a collective political voice that protects their communal
intellectual property, raises wages, and sharply decreases wage
volatility. Since most humans are both social and risk averse they
spontaneously form economic collectives if they can.
Unfortunately, belonging to an economic or political collective
doesn't make its members either nicer or wiser, so communal action
substitutes one set of problems for another. Divide-and-rule political
balkanization gives way to local, regional, national, and
international dominance and political intransigence. Consequently,
while domestic Lebanese corporations might be good for Lebanon, it's
much less clear that any population is better off being dominated by
remote French economic collectives whose interests are enforced and
defended by French military power.
In addition, the pretense of squeezing economic collectives locally
results in greater savagery outside the reach of national control,
hence the disgusting hypocrisy of the modern European problem. Not
that the US is blameless. Our military (at best) abets European
parasitism while supporting a good deal of exploitation of our own. On
the other hand, to the extent that the US is better behaved globally,
the US is also more exploitive domestically, permitting both
widespread homelessness and nearly general wage erosion.
Returning to Lebanon, I suppose the next question might concern why
any thinking person would believe that minority rule by an
accomodative domestic economic collective that was beholden to foreign
economic collectives could conceivably lead to long term stability.
One might also ask how those interests have avoided taking a census
since 1932.
Also, since for Israel 'stability' in Lebanon relies on continued
economic dominance by France, I'm tempted to ask why you think a
paranoid Zionist with strong ties to Netanyahu and an abiding fear of
Iran who is also one of the more common apologists for Israel would
give an unbiased explaination of why the Lebanonese can't govern
themselves without their European colonial masters.
Fraternit� necessary in France, but Stabilit� sufficient for Lebanon?
Probably not, since asking that question naturally leads to the next
question, Stabilit� for whom?
Universal access to public equity, that is, the right of common men to
pool their wealth to form corporations and defend their collective
interests was a pre-Marxist innovation that arose from the French
Revolution. Like France, the US adopted collective economic rights
early on over the objections of the then-ruling landed aristocracy.
As legally constructed collective persons corporations carry enormous
advantages. They not only give savers and/or contributors the right to
own and/or direct equity resources, but the pooling of resources also
gives them a collective political voice that protects their communal
intellectual property, raises wages, and sharply decreases wage
volatility. Since most humans are both social and risk averse they
spontaneously form economic collectives if they can.
Unfortunately, belonging to an economic or political collective
doesn't make its members either nicer or wiser, so communal action
substitutes one set of problems for another. Divide-and-rule political
balkanization gives way to local, regional, national, and
international dominance and political intransigence. Consequently,
while domestic Lebanese corporations might be good for Lebanon, it's
much less clear that any population is better off being dominated by
remote French economic collectives whose interests are enforced and
defended by French military power.
In addition, the pretense of squeezing economic collectives locally
results in greater savagery outside the reach of national control,
hence the disgusting hypocrisy of the modern European problem. Not
that the US is blameless. Our military (at best) abets European
parasitism while supporting a good deal of exploitation of our own. On
the other hand, to the extent that the US is better behaved globally,
the US is also more exploitive domestically, permitting both
widespread homelessness and nearly general wage erosion.
Returning to Lebanon, I suppose the next question might concern why
any thinking person would believe that minority rule by an
accomodative domestic economic collective that was beholden to foreign
economic collectives could conceivably lead to long term stability.
One might also ask how those interests have avoided taking a census
since 1932.
Also, since for Israel 'stability' in Lebanon relies on continued
economic dominance by France, I'm tempted to ask why you think a
paranoid Zionist with strong ties to Netanyahu and an abiding fear of
Iran who is also one of the more common apologists for Israel would
give an unbiased explaination of why the Lebanonese can't govern
themselves without their European colonial masters.
JuanMotime
Apr 25, 2014, 6:39:31 PM4/25/14
to
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:37:53 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>Did he ask the obvious question, i.e. why was Liberté, Egalité,
>Fraternité necessary in France, but Stabilité sufficient for Lebanon?
Who is this paranoid Zionist?
>Fraternité necessary in France, but Stabilité sufficient for Lebanon?
>Probably not, since asking that question naturally leads to the next
>question, Stabilité for whom?
James Beck
Apr 25, 2014, 7:27:56 PM4/25/14
to
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:39:31 -0400, JuanMotime
No one really knows what Atlas thinks, yet - it's not clear whether
her dissertation has been accepted - so Susser, obviously. Didn't you
read any of his public statements before signing up for the course?
>>Did he ask the obvious question, i.e. why was Libert�, Egalit�,
>>Fraternit� necessary in France, but Stabilit� sufficient for Lebanon?
>>Probably not, since asking that question naturally leads to the next
>>question, Stabilit� for whom?
her dissertation has been accepted - so Susser, obviously. Didn't you
read any of his public statements before signing up for the course?
JuanMotime
Apr 25, 2014, 8:52:25 PM4/25/14
to
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:27:56 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
No I didn't actually. I don't take these courses for a grade. I
managed to finish high school. That is the only education I have in
history. Thankfully I got it before Common Core.
Did you watch either lesson I pointed to? You managed to label the
first professor as a Bush-Republican, but you didn't brand him as part
of the Christian tribe.
So you were calling Susser an paranoid Zionist? Although I was pretty
sure that is who you were talking about, you could have been talking
about Fran�ois Hollande. Although France is supposed to be super
secularist, Hollande is clearly part of the Christian tribe. I don't
known if he would be considered a paranoid Zionist or not. I also
could not understand how you could know Susser would be a common
apologist for Israel? Maybe he says that in his public statements. I
didn't read them.
Every course in history I have watched online have mentioned secret
societies and candescent operations, but none of them say much more
than that.
Another Coursera course I took was "Practicing Tolerance in a
Religious Society" Cooperman has a pretty frank explanation of
Ghettos in week 4.
Do you have a label for him?
managed to finish high school. That is the only education I have in
history. Thankfully I got it before Common Core.
Did you watch either lesson I pointed to? You managed to label the
first professor as a Bush-Republican, but you didn't brand him as part
of the Christian tribe.
So you were calling Susser an paranoid Zionist? Although I was pretty
sure that is who you were talking about, you could have been talking
about Fran�ois Hollande. Although France is supposed to be super
secularist, Hollande is clearly part of the Christian tribe. I don't
known if he would be considered a paranoid Zionist or not. I also
could not understand how you could know Susser would be a common
apologist for Israel? Maybe he says that in his public statements. I
didn't read them.
Every course in history I have watched online have mentioned secret
societies and candescent operations, but none of them say much more
than that.
Another Coursera course I took was "Practicing Tolerance in a
Religious Society" Cooperman has a pretty frank explanation of
Ghettos in week 4.
Do you have a label for him?
James Beck
Apr 26, 2014, 12:25:29 AM4/26/14
to
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:52:25 -0400, JuanMotime
>>No one really knows what Atlas thinks, yet - it's not clear whether
>>her dissertation has been accepted - so Susser, obviously. Didn't you
>>read any of his public statements before signing up for the course?
>>
>No I didn't actually. I don't take these courses for a grade. I
>managed to finish high school.
Congratulations.
>That is the only education I have in
>history. Thankfully I got it before Common Core.
The common core is a set of uniform educational standards, not a
curriculum. If your school district(s) were currently exceeding the
minimum quality, they wouldn't be complaining about it. For example, I
find it almost inconceivable that you didn't study any history in high
school.
>Did you watch either lesson I pointed to? You managed to label the
>first professor as a Bush-Republican, but you didn't brand him as part
>of the Christian tribe.
Zelikow's politics are obvious. His religion if any is not.
>So you were calling Susser an paranoid Zionist? Although I was pretty
>sure that is who you were talking about, you could have been talking
>about Fran�ois Hollande. Although France is supposed to be super
>secularist, Hollande is clearly part of the Christian tribe. I don't
>known if he would be considered a paranoid Zionist or not.
Hollande claims to be agnostic. Why do you doubt it?
>I also
>could not understand how you could know Susser would be a common
>apologist for Israel? Maybe he says that in his public statements.
>I didn't read them.
I did.
>Every course in history I have watched online have mentioned secret
>societies and candescent operations, but none of them say much more
>than that.
I think you mean 'clandestine.' Clandestine operations are meant to
stay secret forever, so maybe your lecturers don't know any more than
they told you. Maybe that means that the clandestine operators were
very good at keeping secrets. Then again, maybe it means that they
never really did much of anything at all.
>Another Coursera course I took was "Practicing Tolerance in a
>Religious Society" Cooperman has a pretty frank explanation of
>Ghettos in week 4.
>
>Do you have a label for him?
Seems scholarly and Socratic at first glance. Typical professor,
fascinated by his own field and too busy for politics. Probably hard.
Not particularly charismatic. Good sense of humor.
<JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:27:56 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:39:31 -0400, JuanMotime
>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:37:53 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:42:03 -0400, JuanMotime
>>>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:20:59 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:08:08 -0400, JuanMotime
>>>>>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:38:04 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:07:06 -0400, JuanMotime
>>>>>>>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:27:56 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:39:31 -0400, JuanMotime
>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:37:53 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:42:03 -0400, JuanMotime
>>>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:20:59 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:08:08 -0400, JuanMotime
>>>>>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:38:04 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:07:06 -0400, JuanMotime
>>>>>>>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>No one really knows what Atlas thinks, yet - it's not clear whether
>>her dissertation has been accepted - so Susser, obviously. Didn't you
>>read any of his public statements before signing up for the course?
>>
>No I didn't actually. I don't take these courses for a grade. I
>managed to finish high school.
>That is the only education I have in
>history. Thankfully I got it before Common Core.
curriculum. If your school district(s) were currently exceeding the
minimum quality, they wouldn't be complaining about it. For example, I
find it almost inconceivable that you didn't study any history in high
school.
>Did you watch either lesson I pointed to? You managed to label the
>first professor as a Bush-Republican, but you didn't brand him as part
>of the Christian tribe.
>So you were calling Susser an paranoid Zionist? Although I was pretty
>sure that is who you were talking about, you could have been talking
>about Fran�ois Hollande. Although France is supposed to be super
>secularist, Hollande is clearly part of the Christian tribe. I don't
>known if he would be considered a paranoid Zionist or not.
>I also
>could not understand how you could know Susser would be a common
>apologist for Israel? Maybe he says that in his public statements.
>I didn't read them.
>Every course in history I have watched online have mentioned secret
>societies and candescent operations, but none of them say much more
>than that.
stay secret forever, so maybe your lecturers don't know any more than
they told you. Maybe that means that the clandestine operators were
very good at keeping secrets. Then again, maybe it means that they
never really did much of anything at all.
>Another Coursera course I took was "Practicing Tolerance in a
>Religious Society" Cooperman has a pretty frank explanation of
>Ghettos in week 4.
>
>Do you have a label for him?
fascinated by his own field and too busy for politics. Probably hard.
Not particularly charismatic. Good sense of humor.
JuanMotime
Apr 26, 2014, 12:58:18 PM4/26/14
to
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:25:29 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
I just said that I did study history in high school, but implied no
college history.
>>Did you watch either lesson I pointed to? You managed to label the
>>first professor as a Bush-Republican, but you didn't brand him as part
>>of the Christian tribe.
>
>Zelikow's politics are obvious. His religion if any is not.
>
His religion is one thing. Would you acknowledge he is from the
Christian tribe?
>>So you were calling Susser an paranoid Zionist? Although I was pretty
>>sure that is who you were talking about, you could have been talking
>>about Fran�ois Hollande. Although France is supposed to be super
>>secularist, Hollande is clearly part of the Christian tribe. I don't
>>known if he would be considered a paranoid Zionist or not.
>
>Hollande claims to be agnostic. Why do you doubt it?
I don't doubt he is agnostic, but his Honorary Canon of the Basilica
of St. John Lateran makes him part of the Christian tribe.
of church and state.
It sure does have some pretty high property values to have the highest
poverty rate in the nation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USes-eUJqR4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiryas_Joel,_New_York
college history.
>>Did you watch either lesson I pointed to? You managed to label the
>>first professor as a Bush-Republican, but you didn't brand him as part
>>of the Christian tribe.
>
>Zelikow's politics are obvious. His religion if any is not.
>
Christian tribe?
>>So you were calling Susser an paranoid Zionist? Although I was pretty
>>sure that is who you were talking about, you could have been talking
>>about Fran�ois Hollande. Although France is supposed to be super
>>secularist, Hollande is clearly part of the Christian tribe. I don't
>>known if he would be considered a paranoid Zionist or not.
>
>Hollande claims to be agnostic. Why do you doubt it?
of St. John Lateran makes him part of the Christian tribe.
>
>>I also
>>could not understand how you could know Susser would be a common
>>apologist for Israel? Maybe he says that in his public statements.
>
>>I didn't read them.
>
>I did.
>
>>Every course in history I have watched online have mentioned secret
>>societies and candescent operations, but none of them say much more
>>than that.
>
>I think you mean 'clandestine.' Clandestine operations are meant to
>stay secret forever, so maybe your lecturers don't know any more than
>they told you. Maybe that means that the clandestine operators were
>very good at keeping secrets. Then again, maybe it means that they
>never really did much of anything at all.
>
>>Another Coursera course I took was "Practicing Tolerance in a
>>Religious Society" Cooperman has a pretty frank explanation of
>>Ghettos in week 4.
>>
>>Do you have a label for him?
>
>Seems scholarly and Socratic at first glance. Typical professor,
>fascinated by his own field and too busy for politics. Probably hard.
>Not particularly charismatic. Good sense of humor.
>
I am still left with the question does Kiryas Joel practice separation
>>I also
>>could not understand how you could know Susser would be a common
>>apologist for Israel? Maybe he says that in his public statements.
>
>>I didn't read them.
>
>I did.
>
>>Every course in history I have watched online have mentioned secret
>>societies and candescent operations, but none of them say much more
>>than that.
>
>I think you mean 'clandestine.' Clandestine operations are meant to
>stay secret forever, so maybe your lecturers don't know any more than
>they told you. Maybe that means that the clandestine operators were
>very good at keeping secrets. Then again, maybe it means that they
>never really did much of anything at all.
>
>>Another Coursera course I took was "Practicing Tolerance in a
>>Religious Society" Cooperman has a pretty frank explanation of
>>Ghettos in week 4.
>>
>>Do you have a label for him?
>
>Seems scholarly and Socratic at first glance. Typical professor,
>fascinated by his own field and too busy for politics. Probably hard.
>Not particularly charismatic. Good sense of humor.
>
of church and state.
It sure does have some pretty high property values to have the highest
poverty rate in the nation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USes-eUJqR4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiryas_Joel,_New_York
James Beck
Apr 26, 2014, 6:42:07 PM4/26/14
to
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:58:18 -0400, JuanMotime
are stultifying, wooden, and pedantic. We know that he believes or
believed in propaganda and myth building because he said as much. He's
a foreign policy progressive (aka 'Neocon') who nevertheless opposed
GW Bush's torture policy. He is atypically silent concerning his
personal life.
Also, before using the term 'tribe' so loosely, consider taking some
coursework in anthropology.
>>>So you were calling Susser an paranoid Zionist? Although I was pretty
>>>sure that is who you were talking about, you could have been talking
>>>about François Hollande. Although France is supposed to be super
presidents doesn't tell me anything about his group membership (other
than that he is either a French king or president). By contrast,
Sarkozy actually attended his enthronement ceremony. Hollande did not.
Pat Buchanan (a Nixon supporter) famously convinced a gay rights group
to contribute to Pete McCloskey's (a Nixon opponent) campaign, then
leaked the 'scoop' to an international newspaper. Did Buchanan's
honorarium make McCloskey either gay or a supporter of gay rights?
[snip]
>I am still left with the question does Kiryas Joel practice separation
>of church and state.
In the long run, you won't do nearly as well if you don't do your own
homework.
<JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:25:29 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:52:25 -0400, JuanMotime
>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:27:56 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:39:31 -0400, JuanMotime
>>>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:37:53 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:42:03 -0400, JuanMotime
>>>>>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:20:59 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:08:08 -0400, JuanMotime
>>>>>>>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:38:04 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:07:06 -0400, JuanMotime
>>>>>>>>>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:25:29 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:52:25 -0400, JuanMotime
>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:27:56 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:39:31 -0400, JuanMotime
>>>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:37:53 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:42:03 -0400, JuanMotime
>>>>>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:20:59 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:08:08 -0400, JuanMotime
>>>>>>>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:38:04 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:07:06 -0400, JuanMotime
>>>>>>>>>><JuanM...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>His religion is one thing. Would you acknowledge he is from the
>Christian tribe?
Acknowledge it on what basis? We can observe that his presentations
>Christian tribe?
are stultifying, wooden, and pedantic. We know that he believes or
believed in propaganda and myth building because he said as much. He's
a foreign policy progressive (aka 'Neocon') who nevertheless opposed
GW Bush's torture policy. He is atypically silent concerning his
personal life.
Also, before using the term 'tribe' so loosely, consider taking some
coursework in anthropology.
>>>So you were calling Susser an paranoid Zionist? Although I was pretty
>>>sure that is who you were talking about, you could have been talking
>>>secularist, Hollande is clearly part of the Christian tribe. I don't
>>>known if he would be considered a paranoid Zionist or not.
>>
>>Hollande claims to be agnostic. Why do you doubt it?
>
>I don't doubt he is agnostic, but his Honorary Canon of the Basilica
>of St. John Lateran makes him part of the Christian tribe.
An honorary title automatically bestowed on all French kings and
>>>known if he would be considered a paranoid Zionist or not.
>>
>>Hollande claims to be agnostic. Why do you doubt it?
>
>I don't doubt he is agnostic, but his Honorary Canon of the Basilica
>of St. John Lateran makes him part of the Christian tribe.
presidents doesn't tell me anything about his group membership (other
than that he is either a French king or president). By contrast,
Sarkozy actually attended his enthronement ceremony. Hollande did not.
Pat Buchanan (a Nixon supporter) famously convinced a gay rights group
to contribute to Pete McCloskey's (a Nixon opponent) campaign, then
leaked the 'scoop' to an international newspaper. Did Buchanan's
honorarium make McCloskey either gay or a supporter of gay rights?
[snip]
>I am still left with the question does Kiryas Joel practice separation
>of church and state.
homework.
Seymore4Head
May 29, 2015, 11:08:11 AM5/29/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:20:59 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
Bush-Republican and paranoid Zionist. This guy is best known as the
executive director of the 9/11 Commission.
His thesis..........
https://www.google.com/search?q=Zelikow&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Zelikow+thesis&spell=1
executive director of the 9/11 Commission.
His thesis..........
https://www.google.com/search?q=Zelikow&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Zelikow+thesis&spell=1
passer...@gmail.com
May 31, 2015, 11:58:04 AM5/31/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution.
Can't have a state religion. The government can't decide what religion(s) is genuine and which aren't.
The instant the government starts deciding what is a religion and what isn't, it violates the First Amendment. Treat them like any other business or charity. It instantly resolves all paradoxes. Gotta pay taxes, and if anyone has a display in City Hall, they can too.
Can't have a state religion. The government can't decide what religion(s) is genuine and which aren't.
The instant the government starts deciding what is a religion and what isn't, it violates the First Amendment. Treat them like any other business or charity. It instantly resolves all paradoxes. Gotta pay taxes, and if anyone has a display in City Hall, they can too.
Mr. B1ack
Jun 1, 2015, 9:53:01 PM6/1/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 31 May 2015 08:54:54 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:
>There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution.
>
>Can't have a state religion. The government can't decide what religion(s) is genuine and which aren't.
>
>The instant the government starts deciding what is a religion and what isn't, it violates the First Amendment. Treat them like any other business or charity. It instantly resolves all paradoxes. Gotta pay taxes, and if anyone has a display in City Hall, they can too.
In England, in the latter 1700s, Church and State were
essentially one entity - each got and used power through
the other. Two sides of the coin, so to speak. It was much
the same across europe, each king had to share authority
with the pope and each pope relied on the kings to be his
swordarm. Moral and physical authority, the two sides of
the coin again.
By making it illegal to have an official State religion, this sort
of relationship was substantially (though not entirely) weakened.
The proliferation of religions and sects thereunder inside the
USA likewise weakened the influence religion could have on
the State and vice versa. Our politicians STILL like to be
seen in churches of course, religious leaders STILL like to
be invited to State affairs ... but it just ain't like it was in
the old days. That makes it a lot safer for ye and me.
Now as to actual, literal, "seperation" ... that's impossible.
Most people in govt are religious to some degree ... and
they bring that with them to the job. It influences what sorts
of rules and laws they'll propose, how they'll get it done,
what the look-n-feel will be. Again the religious diversity
of the USA works to the general advantage, blunting any
one zealots efforts to have everything his way.
wrote:
>There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution.
>
>Can't have a state religion. The government can't decide what religion(s) is genuine and which aren't.
>
>The instant the government starts deciding what is a religion and what isn't, it violates the First Amendment. Treat them like any other business or charity. It instantly resolves all paradoxes. Gotta pay taxes, and if anyone has a display in City Hall, they can too.
essentially one entity - each got and used power through
the other. Two sides of the coin, so to speak. It was much
the same across europe, each king had to share authority
with the pope and each pope relied on the kings to be his
swordarm. Moral and physical authority, the two sides of
the coin again.
By making it illegal to have an official State religion, this sort
of relationship was substantially (though not entirely) weakened.
The proliferation of religions and sects thereunder inside the
USA likewise weakened the influence religion could have on
the State and vice versa. Our politicians STILL like to be
seen in churches of course, religious leaders STILL like to
be invited to State affairs ... but it just ain't like it was in
the old days. That makes it a lot safer for ye and me.
Now as to actual, literal, "seperation" ... that's impossible.
Most people in govt are religious to some degree ... and
they bring that with them to the job. It influences what sorts
of rules and laws they'll propose, how they'll get it done,
what the look-n-feel will be. Again the religious diversity
of the USA works to the general advantage, blunting any
one zealots efforts to have everything his way.
Joe Cummings
Jun 2, 2015, 6:23:00 AM6/2/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
There's still an established church in the UK, although that particular Church isn't the biggest church in the UK.
I don't think our resident believers here should take much comfort or hope in the establishment of a religion. The UK is one of the least religious in the world in spite of the officially established religion.
As with the Church of England, so with the Methodists; in the North of England massive Methodist churches were built during the XIXth Century. The process of demolishing these now defunct churches proceeds apace.
Burkhard
Jun 2, 2015, 6:32:58 AM6/2/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Mr. B1ack
Jun 3, 2015, 10:42:55 AM6/3/15
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>There's still an established church in the UK, although that particular Church isn't the biggest church in the UK.
But do we see archbishops commanding the presence
of the PM and dictating tomorrows law unto them ?
>I don't think our resident believers here should take much comfort or hope in the establishment of a religion. The UK is one of the least religious in the world in spite of the officially established religion.
>
>As with the Church of England, so with the Methodists; in the North of England massive Methodist churches were built during the XIXth Century. The process of demolishing these now defunct churches proceeds apace.
the western world. Plays a "major role" in a lot fewer
peoples lives too. But it's hardly "gone", it's not
"irrelevant" ... and under certain conditions could
enjoy a resurgence.
If the Islamists become a much larger issue, a more
significant threat or outright danger, "Christians" and
others may tend to group together for common
theological defense ... and there's be a lot of "Why
we're equal/better than Moslems" stuff going on in
those groups. "Moral" issues could come to
outweigh ideological issues.
It'd take a lot to strike the "establishment clause" from
the US constitution, but maybe a lot less to do so in
european countries that have an equivalent. In "established"
countries the balance of power really could just drift back
over to The Church.
The Islamists DO believe in "establishment" - total
establishment ... Church IS State. While this will
not make their countries any "better" or their people
any happier such concerns appear to be of lesser
importance in that part of the world. Better a constant
civil war, executions and massacres than see the
"wrong" kind of Islam accepted !!!
0 new messages