Why Liberal "Scholars" Deny Ancient Pagan Sacred Prostitution?
Sound of Trumpet
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Sacred prostitution
Sacred prostitution or temple prostitution is the practice of engaging
in sexual intercourse with clients for a religious or sacred purpose.
As with secular prostitution, a fee is usually charged, though in this
instance a portion is remitted to the temple or to the religious
authorities. A person engaged in such behavior is sometimes called a
hierodule. Given the religious and cultic significance of the
practice, modern connotations of the term prostitute may or may not be
appropriate.
Aspects of temple prostitution have been found in ancient Mesopotamia,
ancient Israel, ancient Greece, pre-Columbian America, modern India,
and elsewhere. Because of the importance of the bible in our
civilization, the references embedded in the Hebrew bible form the
central focus of the following discussion.
We begin our discussion with a consideration of the Qedeshim or
Kedeshim, the male hierodules that figure in the Hebrew bible--so
often neglected in favor of their better-known female counterparts.
Let us review the facts that have been generally accepted, at least
until recent years.
Qadesh (pl. qedeshim) is a Hebrew term that literally means "holy or
consecrated one." Formerly rendered "sodomite" (as in the King James
Version) it is more accurately translated as "male cult prostitute" in
modern translations of the scriptures. It is a key term for
understanding a major aspect of same-sex behavior in ancient Israel.
The word occurs as a common noun at least six times (Deuteronomy
23:18, I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46, II Kings 23:7, Job 36:14).
According to Warren Johansson (whose analysis in the Encyclopedia of
Homosexuality I follow in the succeeding paragraphs), it can also be
restored on the basis of textual criticism in II Kings 23:24 (=
Septuagint of II Chronicles 35:19a) and in Hosea 11:12. These passages
all ostensibly designate foreigners (non-Israelites) who served as
sacred prostitutes in the Kingdom of Judah, specifically within the
precincts of the first Temple (ca. 950-622 B.C.).
That these men had sexual relations with other males and not with
women is proven by Hosea 4:14, which castigates the males exclusively
for "spending their manhood" in drunken orgies with hierodules, while
their wives remained at home, alone and unsatisfied, and by the
reading of Isaiah 65:3 in the Qumran manuscript: "And they (m. pl.)
sucked their phalli upon the stones."
Their involvement in Canaanite polytheism, an obvious rival of the
monotheistic Yahweh religion, fostered the biblical equation of
homosexuality with idolatry and paganism and the exclusion of the
individual engaging in homosexual activity from the "congregation of
Israel," an exclusion persisting in the fundamentalist condemnation of
all homosexual expression to this day.?
To understand that the condemnation of the qadesh was a cultic
prohibition and the self-definition of a religious community, not a
moral judgment on other acts taking place outside the sphere of the
sacral, it is necessary to see the qadesh or male hierodule (with the
qedishah as his female counterpart) in his historical and cultural
setting, as a part of Northwest Semitic religion on the territory of
the Kingdom of Judah down to the reforms of King Josiah (622 B.C.).
The commandments forbidding male same-sex activity on pain of death in
the Holiness Code (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) were, in all likelihood,
added only in the Persian period (first half of the fifth century BCE
specifically). Critical scholarship generally dates the Holiness Code
to the beginning of that period, but Martin Noth in his influential
commentary on Leviticus (Philadelphia, 1965) ascribes this part of
Leviticus to a time slightly after 520 BCE, when the new and reformed
Jewish religion set about throwing off all the associations believed
responsible for the catastrophe of 586, the destruction of the first
Temple and the exile of the bulk of the population of Judah to
Babylon. The proof of the later origin of the verses indicated above
is the prophetic reading ("haphtarah") for the portion of the Torah
including Leviticus 18, namely Ezekiel 22:10-11, a comparison of which
shows that Ezekiel was alluding to a text which in the final years of
the First Commonwealth began with Leviticus 18:7 and ended with 18:20,
as if to say "You have committed every sexual sin in the book."
?
Derrick Sherwin Bailey, in his Homosexuality and the Western Christian
Tradition (London, 1955), argued that the qedeshim "served the female
worshipper.” However, it is unlikely that women were admitted to the
Temple, then or later, and all parallels from the religious life of
antiquity, from Cyprus to Mesopotamia, involve male homosexual
connection. Designations for the male prostitute in Hebrew and
Phoenician are "dog" {kelebh) and "puppy" (gar), notably in
Deuteronomy 23:17, where the kelebh is set in parallel to the zonah
"(female) prostitute." In Isaiah 3:4 the word ta'alullm is rendered
effeminati by St. Jerome; it means "males who are sexually abused by
others," = German Schandbuben. Another likely reference is Isaiah 2:6,
the closing hemistich of which Jerome translated etpueris alienis
adhaeserunt, while the Aramaic pseudo-Jonathan Targum euphemistically
renders the text "And they walked in the ways of the gentiles," in
which the Hebrew verb has an Arabic cognate that means "they loved
tenderly." InHosea 11:12a slight emendation, together with comparison
again of the Arabic meaning of the verb in the first half of the
parallel, yields the meaning "And Judah is still untrue to God/but
faithful to kedeshlm."
The preceding analysis, deriving from the careful work of Warren
Johansson, is somewhat technical. Yet Johansson goes on to pose some
more general questions.
?
“How could male prostitutes fit into the scheme of Northwest Semitic -
specifically Canaanite - religion during the First Commonwealth?
Foreign as the notion is to the modem religious consciousness, the
worship of Ishtar and Tammuz was a fertility cult in which union with
the hierodule consecrated to the service of the goddess was thought to
have magical functions and powers. Such hierodules could be either
male or female, and the singular qadesh in I Kings 14:24 is to be
taken as a collective, meaning ‘hierodules as a professional caste’
who were ‘in the land,’ practicing their foreign rites. The males may
even have been eunuchs, though the context of Job 36:14 ‘Their soul
dieth in youth, and their life at the hierodules' age’ suggests that
they were adolescent prostitutes [not unlike] the bar or street
hustler of today. Furthermore, place names containing the element
Kadesh, such as the one in Genesis 14:7, which also was called
Enmishpat "Spring of Judgment" indicate the locales of shrines whose
personnel had both erotic and mantic functions. This is independently
confirmed by the glosses on the Septuagint renderings of qadesh and
qedeshah in Deuteronomy 23:18.”
I turn now to the broader context, which is succinctly detailed in the
Hebrew Bible itself. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 warns:
“None of the daughters of Israel shall be a kedeshah, nor shall any of
the sons of Israel be a kadesh. You shall not bring the hire of a
prostitute (zonah) or the wages of a dog (keleb) into the house of the
Lord your God to pay a vow, for both of these are an abomination to
the Lord your God.”
Here the two sacred prostitutes, male and female, are brought into
parallel. Similarly, with their secular counterparts. The whole forms
a perfect chiastic square.
In my view, nothing could be clearer. Nonetheless, during the last few
decades several schools of revisionism have arisen that strive to deny
the historicity of sacred prostitution in the ancient Middle East.
Robert A. Oden (The Bible without Theology, Urbana, 1999) holds that
the concept of sacred prostitution is an invention, a kind of slander
without foundation, designed to embarrass the Israelites' neighbors.
This claim recalls the controversial assertion of William Arens (The
Man-Eating Myth, 1980) that the ascription of cannibalism to tribal
and early historical peoples is simply a manifestation of prejudice.
In his view, there is no evidence supporting the widespread belief
that cannibalism has been a socially accepted practice in certain
cultures. Let us not mince words. Arens' claim is clearly absurd. As
the years have gone by, archaeologists and anthropologists have
presented masses of evidence that has surfaced showing that all around
the world there have been societies in which cannibalism has been a
commonplace ritual practice. Arens’s denialism seems to have been
motivated by a kind of political correctness, one that seeks to deny
any aspersions that might be cast on cultures that were formerly
thought to be savage, but are now hailed as paragons of third-world
virtue. Similar motivations seem to lie behind the denial of the
reality of sacred prostitution in ancient Israel.
The most massive assault on the idea so far stems from the classical
scholar Stephanie Lynn Budin in her book The Myth of Sacred
Prostitution in Antiquity” (Cambridge. 2008. On page one she states
her thesis in peremptory fashion: "Sacred prostitution never existed
in the ancient Near East or Mediterranean.”
Most reviwers are inclined to accept Budin’s contention that some of
the of the texts commonly cited to refer to sacred prostitution
actually do not do so. These texts may have something to do with
prostitution, but not the special form of it being considered here.
That is the case, it seems, with texts by Pindar, Strabo, Klearkhos,
Justinus, Valerius Maximus, which Budin parses in great detail.
But so what? These texts stem from classical antiquity, where sacred
prostitution has never been held to be of central importance. The key
area is the ancient Middle East, and here Budin falls down. She relies
on the renderings in Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts (published
in 1969) as a point of reference. Yet this outdated publication has
been replaced by other, more accurate translations, which she seems
not to have consulted. She does use the standard Sumerian and Akkadian
dictionaries, but cherry-picks the evidence so as to omit judgments by
other scholars that terms in those languages do in fact refer to
sacred prostitution.
There are more general problems. Budin narrowly defines sacred
prostitution as always requiring a direct quid-pro-quo. A specified
portion of the money received must be rendered to the deity. However,
sacred prostitution has not always worked this way, as evidence from
modern India suggests. One observer reports, for example, having
encountered a male prostitute who frequented the precinct of a Hindu
temple. This man suggested that sexual congress with him would partake
of the sacred, but there was no question of his tithing to the temple.
Another dubious technique Budin employs is the argumentum e silentio.
Because excavations and other research have not found uncontrovertible
evidence, she thinks that the practice did not exist. This claim is
hardly persuasive: no archaeological evidence has been found to
confirm or deny the existence of Saul, David, and Solomon but most
laypeople--and quite a few scholars--stubbornly continue to believe in
their existence. Archaeology does not respond to questions of this
kind.
Space does not permit further review of these revisionist arguments,
which are proliferating. Ir is my view that, aa regards the Hebrew
bible, they fail completely.
However, let us play devil's advocate. If sacred prostitution was a
myth, why was it invented? The Early Christians did indeed have a
motive to cast aspersions on pagan decadence. However, the
revisionists (taking their cue from Edward Said) ascribe the main
element in the supposed invention to 19th-century Orientalism, which
ascribes strange erotic practices to the Middle Eastern “Other.”
One may acknowledge that such prejudices played some role. However.
they must be set aside in a dispassionate examination of the issue.
The revisionists have not done this.
What, one may ask, are the reasons underlying their insistent denial?
One, I suspect, is simple prudery. It is much nicer to regard the
qedeshot and qedeshim as harmless functionaries and bureaucrats than
as sex workers remitting a portion of their earnings to the temple.
Feminist concerns also seem to play an important role. Sex-trafficking
is an ugly reality in the world today. It should be stamped out. But
nothing is gained in this cause by denying historical realities.
Robert Carnegie
As for the topic... you should get out and meet people more.
Martin Edwards
> setting, as a part of Northwest Semitic religion on the territory of
> the Kingdom of Judah down to the reforms of King Josiah (622 B.C.).
> The commandments forbidding male same-sex activity on pain of death in
> the Holiness Code (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) were, in all likelihood,
> added only in the Persian period (first half of the fifth century BCE
> specifically). Critical scholarship generally dates the Holiness Code
> to the beginning of that period, but Martin Noth in his influential
> commentary on Leviticus (Philadelphia, 1965) ascribes this part of
> Leviticus to a time slightly after 520 BCE, when the new and reformed
> Jewish religion set about throwing off all the associations believed
> responsible for the catastrophe of 586, the destruction of the first
> Temple and the exile of the bulk of the population of Judah to
> Babylon. The proof of the later origin of the verses indicated above
> is the prophetic reading ("haphtarah") for the portion of the Torah
> including Leviticus 18, namely Ezekiel 22:10-11, a comparison of which
> shows that Ezekiel was alluding to a text which in the final years of
> the First Commonwealth began with Leviticus 18:7 and ended with 18:20,
> as if to say "You have committed every sexual sin in the book."
> ?
> Derrick Sherwin Bailey, in his Homosexuality and the Western Christian
> Tradition (London, 1955), argued that the qedeshim "served the female
> Temple, then or later, and all parallels from the religious life of
> antiquity, from Cyprus to Mesopotamia, involve male homosexual
> connection. Designations for the male prostitute in Hebrew and
> Phoenician are "dog" {kelebh) and "puppy" (gar), notably in
> Deuteronomy 23:17, where the kelebh is set in parallel to the zonah
> "(female) prostitute." In Isaiah 3:4 the word ta'alullm is rendered
> effeminati by St. Jerome; it means "males who are sexually abused by
> others," = German Schandbuben. Another likely reference is Isaiah 2:6,
> the closing hemistich of which Jerome translated etpueris alienis
> adhaeserunt, while the Aramaic pseudo-Jonathan Targum euphemistically
> which the Hebrew verb has an Arabic cognate that means "they loved
> tenderly." InHosea 11:12a slight emendation, together with comparison
> again of the Arabic meaning of the verb in the first half of the
> parallel, yields the meaning "And Judah is still untrue to God/but
> faithful to kedeshlm."
>
> The preceding analysis, deriving from the careful work of Warren
> Johansson, is somewhat technical. Yet Johansson goes on to pose some
> more general questions.
> ?
> specifically Canaanite - religion during the First Commonwealth?
> Foreign as the notion is to the modem religious consciousness, the
> worship of Ishtar and Tammuz was a fertility cult in which union with
> the hierodule consecrated to the service of the goddess was thought to
> have magical functions and powers. Such hierodules could be either
> male or female, and the singular qadesh in I Kings 14:24 is to be
> who were �in the land,� practicing their foreign rites. The males may
> even have been eunuchs, though the context of Job 36:14 �Their soul
> dieth in youth, and their life at the hierodules' age� suggests that
> they were adolescent prostitutes [not unlike] the bar or street
> hustler of today. Furthermore, place names containing the element
> Kadesh, such as the one in Genesis 14:7, which also was called
> Enmishpat "Spring of Judgment" indicate the locales of shrines whose
> personnel had both erotic and mantic functions. This is independently
> confirmed by the glosses on the Septuagint renderings of qadesh and
>
> I turn now to the broader context, which is succinctly detailed in the
> Hebrew Bible itself. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 warns:
>
> the sons of Israel be a kadesh. You shall not bring the hire of a
> prostitute (zonah) or the wages of a dog (keleb) into the house of the
> Lord your God to pay a vow, for both of these are an abomination to
>
> Here the two sacred prostitutes, male and female, are brought into
> parallel. Similarly, with their secular counterparts. The whole forms
> a perfect chiastic square.
>
> In my view, nothing could be clearer. Nonetheless, during the last few
> decades several schools of revisionism have arisen that strive to deny
> the historicity of sacred prostitution in the ancient Middle East.
>
> Robert A. Oden (The Bible without Theology, Urbana, 1999) holds that
> the concept of sacred prostitution is an invention, a kind of slander
> without foundation, designed to embarrass the Israelites' neighbors.
> This claim recalls the controversial assertion of William Arens (The
> Man-Eating Myth, 1980) that the ascription of cannibalism to tribal
> and early historical peoples is simply a manifestation of prejudice.
> In his view, there is no evidence supporting the widespread belief
> that cannibalism has been a socially accepted practice in certain
> cultures. Let us not mince words. Arens' claim is clearly absurd. As
> the years have gone by, archaeologists and anthropologists have
> presented masses of evidence that has surfaced showing that all around
> the world there have been societies in which cannibalism has been a
> motivated by a kind of political correctness, one that seeks to deny
> any aspersions that might be cast on cultures that were formerly
> thought to be savage, but are now hailed as paragons of third-world
> virtue. Similar motivations seem to lie behind the denial of the
> reality of sacred prostitution in ancient Israel.
>
> The most massive assault on the idea so far stems from the classical
> scholar Stephanie Lynn Budin in her book The Myth of Sacred
> her thesis in peremptory fashion: "Sacred prostitution never existed
>
> Most reviwers are inclined to accept Budin�s contention that some of
> the of the texts commonly cited to refer to sacred prostitution
> actually do not do so. These texts may have something to do with
> prostitution, but not the special form of it being considered here.
> That is the case, it seems, with texts by Pindar, Strabo, Klearkhos,
> Justinus, Valerius Maximus, which Budin parses in great detail.
>
> But so what? These texts stem from classical antiquity, where sacred
> prostitution has never been held to be of central importance. The key
> area is the ancient Middle East, and here Budin falls down. She relies
>
> One may acknowledge that such prejudices played some role. However.
> they must be set aside in a dispassionate examination of the issue.
> The revisionists have not done this.
>
> What, one may ask, are the reasons underlying their insistent denial?
> One, I suspect, is simple prudery. It is much nicer to regard the
> qedeshot and qedeshim as harmless functionaries and bureaucrats than
> as sex workers remitting a portion of their earnings to the temple.
> Feminist concerns also seem to play an important role. Sex-trafficking
> is an ugly reality in the world today. It should be stamped out. But
> nothing is gained in this cause by denying historical realities.
There are even references to it in the OT, eg Josiah destroying the
houses of the holy catamites.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
Dänk 1010011010
wrote:
> http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2009/11/sacred-prostitution.html
>
> Wednesday, November 18, 2009
>
> Sacred prostitution
>
> Sacred prostitution or temple prostitution is the practice of engaging
> in sexual intercourse with clients for a religious or sacred purpose.
> As with secular prostitution, a fee is usually charged, though in this
> instance a portion is remitted to the temple or to the religious
> authorities. A person engaged in such behavior is sometimes called a
> hierodule. Given the religious and cultic significance of the
> practice, modern connotations of the term prostitute may or may not be
> appropriate.
>
> Aspects of temple prostitution have been found in ancient Mesopotamia,
> ancient Israel, ancient Greece, pre-Columbian America, modern India,
> and elsewhere. Because of the importance of the bible in our
> civilization, the references embedded in the Hebrew bible form the
According to leftists/liberals, prostitution was created by the
patriarchy as a way to oppress womyn. Since ancient pre-christian
pagan societies were matriarchal, prostitution did not exist.
*Anarcissie*
The Roman Empire was matriarchal before Constantine?
David Johnston
Liar.
Alan Ford
> According to leftists/liberals, prostitution
ERROR: IDIOCY STACK DUMP OVERLOAD
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Jon Schild
> http://crap.com
>
> Wednesday, November 18, 2009
>
> Sacred prostitution
And yet, oddly enough, I have read descriptions of temple prostitution
in many "liberal" histories. How did that ever happen if liberals deny
it existed?
This whole article is a pack of lies, just like most of those this loon
quotes.
Quadibloc
> As for the topic... you should get out and meet people more.
ObSf: Remember the Isaac Asimov story about a historian who denied
that an ancient people sacrificed their children to Moloch, as the
Bible alleged?
John Savard
James A. Donald
1010011010
> According to leftists/liberals, prostitution was
> created by the patriarchy as a way to oppress womyn.
> Since ancient pre-christian pagan societies were
> matriarchal, prostitution did not exist.
And neither of course did slavery, which was a creation
of the British empire, nor genocide, which was a result
of white racism, nor ...
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> According to leftists/liberals, prostitution was created by the
> patriarchy as a way to oppress womyn. Since ancient pre-christian
> pagan societies were matriarchal, prostitution did not exist.
According to everyone else, it's the oldest profession. Except for
many who don't consider it a "profession".
Come to think, since it's usually a matter of providing sexual
gratification in exchange for other services or goods, nowadays
usually money, wouldn't the profession of providing such other
services or goods have to exist first? The oldest profession must be
mammoth wrangler, or something.
Martin Edwards
There is absolutely no evidence for this. It was got up by extreme
feminists in the 1960s. I am a supporter of feminism in general, but
there was a lot of this kind of wishful thinking at the time. "Free
lovers" believed that early man was promiscuous. Again, no evidence.
JTEM
Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Free lovers" believed that early man was promiscuous.
> Again, no evidence.
Wrong.
There appears to be a strong correlation between
sperm competition and the size of the testicles.
Of the the primates, Gorillas have the smallest
testis. They have no sperm competition. A male
either has an entire group of females all to himself,
or he has none.
Chimps have the largest testicles amongst primates.
They have a great deal of sperm competition.
Humans (pardon the pun) "Lay" somewhere between the
two. This strongly suggests that sperm competition
has influenced human evolution, though not nearly
as much as in the case of chimps.
Michael Grosberg
wrote:
> http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2009/11/sacred-prostitution.html
>
> Wednesday, November 18, 2009
>
> Sacred prostitution
>
the ever-so-clueless SOT should really check a bit before plugging
someone's writing / blog. Wayne R. Dynes is a gay activist and
scholar, wrote several books on the subject, and was a co-founder of
New York's Gay Academic Union in 1973.
Howard Brazee
talk-o...@moderators.isc.or�g <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>According to everyone else, it's the oldest profession. Except for
>many who don't consider it a "profession".
>
>Come to think, since it's usually a matter of providing sexual
>gratification in exchange for other services or goods, nowadays
>usually money, wouldn't the profession of providing such other
>services or goods have to exist first? The oldest profession must be
>mammoth wrangler, or something.
Why? Other species trade off sex for protection and other services.
It doesn't mean that protection and other services came first.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Chimps have the largest testicles amongst primates.
>They have a great deal of sperm competition.
Are you sure? I think there's a South American monkey that has much
larger testicles and extreme sperm competition.
Matt Giwer
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:53:35 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Chimps have the largest testicles amongst primates. They have a great
>> deal of sperm competition.
> Are you sure? I think there's a South American monkey that has much
> larger testicles and extreme sperm competition.
Monkeys are not apes.
--
The amount of sleep the average person needs is one snooze more.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4200
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Tue Dec 29 11:35:07 EST 2009
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:10:19 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
> talk-o...@moderators.isc.or�g <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >According to everyone else, it's the oldest profession. Except for
> >many who don't consider it a "profession".
> >
> >Come to think, since it's usually a matter of providing sexual
> >gratification in exchange for other services or goods, nowadays
> >usually money, wouldn't the profession of providing such other
> >services or goods have to exist first? The oldest profession must be
> >mammoth wrangler, or something.
>
> Why? Other species trade off sex for protection and other services.
> It doesn't mean that protection and other services came first.
Well... if you're not providing sex in exchange for a consideration,
then it isn't prostitution.
So the oldest profession is nymphomania, I suppose. But that's more
of a hobby...
Matt Giwer
Agreed with the activist problem. They tend to grossly exaggerate.
But the idea that the Yahwist cult was ever more than the one that wrote the
surviving books, regardless of when they were written, has no foundation
beyond religious tradition. Without the fictions of the OT stories no one
would think to impose any version of the current narrative upon the
archaeology of the region. That includes those who totally reject the contents
of the stories.
The stories rail against homosexuals too frequently to consider them any more
than the occasional whorehouse raid we see today. That a group would adopt
some god as a patron was sort of a custom in the good old days. If there were
household gods there were certainly whorehouse gods and Lycus to lead the
girls in noonday prayers. (Rent Funny Forum for additional details.)
Rejecting baseless ideas of exceptionalism for bibleland for absence of
contemporary mention the only odd thing here is the suggestion of exclusively
male houses rather than full service whorehouses.
--
If the world adopts Israel's view of the Goldstone report then the world
at least owes Milosevic a posthumous apology and possibly also to Hitler.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4206
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6
Tue Dec 29 22:10:15 EST 2009
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>> Chimps have the largest testicles amongst primates. They have a great
>>> deal of sperm competition.
>
>> Are you sure? I think there's a South American monkey that has much
>> larger testicles and extreme sperm competition.
>
> Monkeys are not apes.
Non sequitur.
Mike Schilling
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:53:35 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Chimps have the largest testicles amongst primates. They have a
>>> great deal of sperm competition.
>
>> Are you sure? I think there's a South American monkey that has
>> much
>> larger testicles and extreme sperm competition.
>
> Monkeys are not apes.
Ooook!
Quadibloc
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Howard Brazee wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:53:35 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Chimps have the largest testicles amongst primates. They have a great
> >> deal of sperm competition.
> > Are you sure? I think there's a South American monkey that has much
> > larger testicles and extreme sperm competition.
> Monkeys are not apes.
As has been noted, monkeys _are_ primates. Humans, apes, monkeys, and
even lemurs are primates.
John Savard
Howard Brazee
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>As has been noted, monkeys _are_ primates. Humans, apes, monkeys, and
>even lemurs are primates.
And Popes, doubly so.
Martin Edwards
Martin Edwards
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:57:05 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> As has been noted, monkeys _are_ primates. Humans, apes, monkeys, and
>> even lemurs are primates.
>
> And Popes, doubly so.
>
Quadibloc
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:57:05 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >As has been noted, monkeys _are_ primates. Humans, apes, monkeys, and
> >even lemurs are primates.
> And Popes, doubly so.
I thought that was an Anglican title, not a Catholic one.
John Savard
Michael Grosberg
> Michael Grosberg wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 2:29 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2009/11/sacred-prostitution.html
> >> Wednesday, November 18, 2009
> >> Sacred prostitution
> > <snip content>
> > the ever-so-clueless SOT should really check a bit before plugging
> > someone's writing / blog. Wayne R. Dynes is a gay activist and
> > scholar, wrote several books on the subject, and was a co-founder of
> > New York's Gay Academic Union in 1973.
>
> Agreed with the activist problem. They tend to grossly exaggerate.
You are missing the point entirely. SOT's post's title rails against
"liberal scholars". to prove his point, he quotes... a liberal
scholar. This is called irony (if you don't know what this means, it's
like bronzey or coppery, only more blue-grayish).
> But the idea that the Yahwist cult was ever more than the spam that wrote the
> surviving spam, regardless of spam they were spam, spam no spam
> beyond spam spam spam spam <...snipped some more spam>
I didn't bother to read you reply. sorry you wasted time on this. The
thing is... the status of homosexual cult slavery in ancient mid-east
culture is so marginal and completely irrelevant to any current issue
I know of, I can't even figure why anyone would bother spammig about
it let alone post on-topic replies.
Mike Schilling
You were mistaken, then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_hierarchy#Primates
The Latin-Rite title of Primate has in some countries been granted to
the bishop of a particular (usually metropolitan) see. It once
involved authority over all the other sees in the country or region,
but now involves no more than a "prerogative of honor", except in
special cases. Today, Primates are usually designated to an archbishop
or bishop who serves with the first diocese created within the
country, or an archbishop/bishop who serves with the oldest diocese
within the country. Exceptions exist, such as in Poland, where the
Primate is the archbishop of the oldest archdiocese (Gniezno, founded
in 1000), and not the oldest diocese (Poznan, founded in 968).
Matt Giwer
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:36:05 -0500, Matt Giwer <ma...@giwersworld.org>
> wrote:
>>>> Chimps have the largest testicles amongst primates. They have a great
>>>> deal of sperm competition.
>>> Are you sure? I think there's a South American monkey that has much
>>> larger testicles and extreme sperm competition.
>> Monkeys are not apes.
> Non sequitur.
The original comment was intended to refer to apes regardless of the words
used. Monkeys are not apes.
--
If the world adopts Israel's view of the Goldstone report then the world
at least owes Milosevic a posthumous apology and possibly also to Hitler.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4206
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Thu Dec 31 23:53:42 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
Which is correct. The error is in the original post. The comments are
currently considered correct when applied to apes only.
--
Hatred of Israel is defined as the failure to make
sufficient expressions of puppy love.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4210
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Thu Dec 31 23:55:43 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
The point was a specific problem with male homosexuals assumes an
exceptionalism for bibleland which is not in evidence. While the homosexual
tradition was suppressed in Europe it remains largely unchanged outside of
Europe. Islam added only a prohibition against publicly flaunting it while
preserving the cheek kissing and public handholding and other signs of
affection between men.
--
When one says there are people worse than he is, his is also say he is no
better than them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4198
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Fri Jan 1 00:00:14 EST 2010
Michael Price
wrote:
> On Dec 27, 5:29 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2009/11/sacred-prostitution.html
>
> > Wednesday, November 18, 2009
>
> > Sacred prostitution
>
> > in sexual intercourse with clients for a religious or sacred purpose.
> > As with secular prostitution, a fee is usually charged, though in this
> > instance a portion is remitted to the temple or to the religious
> > authorities. A person engaged in such behavior is sometimes called a
> > hierodule. Given the religious and cultic significance of the
> > practice, modern connotations of the term prostitute may or may not be
> > appropriate.
>
> > Aspects of temple prostitution have been found in ancient Mesopotamia,
> > ancient Israel, ancient Greece, pre-Columbian America, modern India,
> > and elsewhere. Because of the importance of the bible in our
> > civilization, the references embedded in the Hebrew bible form the
> > central focus of the following discussion...
>
> According to leftists/liberals, prostitution was created by the
> patriarchy as a way to oppress womyn. Since ancient pre-christian
> pagan societies were matriarchal, prostitution did not exist.
Wow that's a stupid thing to say. The Romans were matriarchal?
The Egyptians? The Hittites?
Michael Price
only evidence for it is the least reliable source known to man, the
Bible. Because nothing here relies on anything but the "sacred" texts
of Judaism.
On Dec 28 2009, 11:29 am, Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
> http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2009/11/sacred-prostitution.html
>
> Wednesday, November 18, 2009
>
> Sacred prostitution
>
> Sacred prostitution or temple prostitution is the practice of engaging
> in sexual intercourse with clients for a religious or sacred purpose.
> As with secular prostitution, a fee is usually charged, though in this
> instance a portion is remitted to the temple or to the religious
> authorities. A person engaged in such behavior is sometimes called a
> hierodule. Given the religious and cultic significance of the
> practice, modern connotations of the term prostitute may or may not be
> appropriate.
>
> Aspects of temple prostitution have been found in ancient Mesopotamia,
> ancient Israel, ancient Greece, pre-Columbian America, modern India,
> and elsewhere. Because of the importance of the bible in our
> civilization, the references embedded in the Hebrew bible form the
> central focus of the following discussion.
>
> We begin our discussion with a consideration of the Qedeshim or
> Kedeshim, the male hierodules that figure in the Hebrew bible--so
> often neglected in favor of their better-known female counterparts.
>
> Let us review the facts that have been generally accepted, at least
> until recent years.
>
> Qadesh (pl. qedeshim) is a Hebrew term that literally means "holy or
> consecrated one." Formerly rendered "sodomite" (as in the King James
> Version) it is more accurately translated as "male cult prostitute" in
> modern translations of the scriptures. It is a key term for
> understanding a major aspect of same-sex behavior in ancient Israel.
> The word occurs as a common noun at least six times (Deuteronomy
> 23:18, I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46, II Kings 23:7, Job 36:14).
> According to Warren Johansson (whose analysis in the Encyclopedia of
> Homosexuality I follow in the succeeding paragraphs), it can also be
> restored on the basis of textual criticism in II Kings 23:24 (=
> Septuagint of II Chronicles 35:19a) and in Hosea 11:12. These passages
> all ostensibly designate foreigners (non-Israelites) who served as
> sacred prostitutes in the Kingdom of Judah, specifically within the
> precincts of the first Temple (ca. 950-622 B.C.).
>
> That these men had sexual relations with other males and not with
> women is proven by Hosea 4:14, which castigates the males exclusively
> for "spending their manhood" in drunken orgies with hierodules, while
> their wives remained at home, alone and unsatisfied, and by the
> reading of Isaiah 65:3 in the Qumran manuscript: "And they (m. pl.)
> sucked their phalli upon the stones."
>
> Their involvement in Canaanite polytheism, an obvious rival of the
> monotheistic Yahweh religion, fostered the biblical equation of
> homosexuality with idolatry and paganism and the exclusion of the
> individual engaging in homosexual activity from the "congregation of
> Israel," an exclusion persisting in the fundamentalist condemnation of
> all homosexual expression to this day.?
> To understand that the condemnation of the qadesh was a cultic
> prohibition and the self-definition of a religious community, not a
> moral judgment on other acts taking place outside the sphere of the
> sacral, it is necessary to see the qadesh or male hierodule (with the
> qedishah as his female counterpart) in his historical and cultural
> setting, as a part of Northwest Semitic religion on the territory of
> the Kingdom of Judah down to the reforms of King Josiah (622 B.C.).
> The commandments forbidding male same-sex activity on pain of death in
> the Holiness Code (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) were, in all likelihood,
> added only in the Persian period (first half of the fifth century BCE
> specifically). Critical scholarship generally dates the Holiness Code
> to the beginning of that period, but Martin Noth in his influential
> commentary on Leviticus (Philadelphia, 1965) ascribes this part of
> Leviticus to a time slightly after 520 BCE, when the new and reformed
> Jewish religion set about throwing off all the associations believed
> responsible for the catastrophe of 586, the destruction of the first
> Temple and the exile of the bulk of the population of Judah to
> Babylon. The proof of the later origin of the verses indicated above
> is the prophetic reading ("haphtarah") for the portion of the Torah
> including Leviticus 18, namely Ezekiel 22:10-11, a comparison of which
> shows that Ezekiel was alluding to a text which in the final years of
> the First Commonwealth began with Leviticus 18:7 and ended with 18:20,
> as if to say "You have committed every sexual sin in the book."
> ?
> Derrick Sherwin Bailey, in his Homosexuality and the Western Christian
> Tradition (London, 1955), argued that the qedeshim "served the female
> worshipper.” However, it is unlikely that women were admitted to the
> Temple, then or later, and all parallels from the religious life of
> antiquity, from Cyprus to Mesopotamia, involve male homosexual
> connection. Designations for the male prostitute in Hebrew and
> Phoenician are "dog" {kelebh) and "puppy" (gar), notably in
> Deuteronomy 23:17, where the kelebh is set in parallel to the zonah
> "(female) prostitute." In Isaiah 3:4 the word ta'alullm is rendered
> effeminati by St. Jerome; it means "males who are sexually abused by
> others," = German Schandbuben. Another likely reference is Isaiah 2:6,
> the closing hemistich of which Jerome translated etpueris alienis
> adhaeserunt, while the Aramaic pseudo-Jonathan Targum euphemistically
> renders the text "And they walked in the ways of the gentiles," in
> which the Hebrew verb has an Arabic cognate that means "they loved
> tenderly." InHosea 11:12a slight emendation, together with comparison
> again of the Arabic meaning of the verb in the first half of the
> parallel, yields the meaning "And Judah is still untrue to God/but
> faithful to kedeshlm."
>
> The preceding analysis, deriving from the careful work of Warren
> Johansson, is somewhat technical. Yet Johansson goes on to pose some
> more general questions.
> ?
> “How could male prostitutes fit into the scheme of Northwest Semitic -
> specifically Canaanite - religion during the First Commonwealth?
> Foreign as the notion is to the modem religious consciousness, the
> worship of Ishtar and Tammuz was a fertility cult in which union with
> the hierodule consecrated to the service of the goddess was thought to
> have magical functions and powers. Such hierodules could be either
> male or female, and the singular qadesh in I Kings 14:24 is to be
> taken as a collective, meaning ‘hierodules as a professional caste’
> who were ‘in the land,’ practicing their foreign rites. The males may
> even have been eunuchs, though the context of Job 36:14 ‘Their soul
> dieth in youth, and their life at the hierodules' age’ suggests that
> they were adolescent prostitutes [not unlike] the bar or street
> hustler of today. Furthermore, place names containing the element
> Kadesh, such as the one in Genesis 14:7, which also was called
> Enmishpat "Spring of Judgment" indicate the locales of shrines whose
> personnel had both erotic and mantic functions. This is independently
> confirmed by the glosses on the Septuagint renderings of qadesh and
> qedeshah in Deuteronomy 23:18.”
>
> I turn now to the broader context, which is succinctly detailed in the
> Hebrew Bible itself. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 warns:
>
> “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a kedeshah, nor shall any of
> the sons of Israel be a kadesh. You shall not bring the hire of a
> prostitute (zonah) or the wages of a dog (keleb) into the house of the
> Lord your God to pay a vow, for both of these are an abomination to
> the Lord your God.”
>
> Here the two sacred prostitutes, male and female, are brought into
> parallel. Similarly, with their secular counterparts. The whole forms
> a perfect chiastic square.
>
> In my view, nothing could be clearer. Nonetheless, during the last few
> decades several schools of revisionism have arisen that strive to deny
> the historicity of sacred prostitution in the ancient Middle East.
>
> Robert A. Oden (The Bible without Theology, Urbana, 1999) holds that
> the concept of sacred prostitution is an invention, a kind of slander
> without foundation, designed to embarrass the Israelites' neighbors.
> This claim recalls the controversial assertion of William Arens (The
> Man-Eating Myth, 1980) that the ascription of cannibalism to tribal
> and early historical peoples is simply a manifestation of prejudice.
> In his view, there is no evidence supporting the widespread belief
> that cannibalism has been a socially accepted practice in certain
> cultures. Let us not mince words. Arens' claim is clearly absurd. As
> the years have gone by, archaeologists and anthropologists have
> presented masses of evidence that has surfaced showing that all around
> the world there have been societies in which cannibalism has been a
> commonplace ritual practice. Arens’s denialism seems to have been
> motivated by a kind of political correctness, one that seeks to deny
> any aspersions that might be cast on cultures that were formerly
> thought to be savage, but are now hailed as paragons of third-world
> virtue. Similar motivations seem to lie behind the denial of the
> reality of sacred prostitution in ancient Israel.
>
> The most massive assault on the idea so far stems from the classical
> scholar Stephanie Lynn Budin in her book The Myth of Sacred
> Prostitution in Antiquity” (Cambridge. 2008. On page one she states
> her thesis in peremptory fashion: "Sacred prostitution never existed
> in the ancient Near East or Mediterranean.”
>
> Most reviwers are inclined to accept Budin’s contention that some of
> the of the texts commonly cited to refer to sacred prostitution
> actually do not do so. These texts may have something to do with
> prostitution, but not the special form of it being considered here.
> That is the case, it seems, with texts by Pindar, Strabo, Klearkhos,
> Justinus, Valerius Maximus, which Budin parses in great detail.
>
> But so what? These texts stem from classical antiquity, where sacred
> prostitution has never been held to be of central importance. The key
> area is the ancient Middle East, and here Budin falls down. She relies ...
>
> read more »
Michael Grosberg
Nope, I still don't care about any of this. Also, dude, you think
cheek kissing is a sign of homosexuality? sticking your schlong in
some other guy's butt is a sign of homosexuality. Cheek kissing is
just... cheek kissing.
Martin Edwards
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:36:05 -0500, Matt Giwer <ma...@giwersworld.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>> Chimps have the largest testicles amongst primates. They have a great
>>>>> deal of sperm competition.
>>>> Are you sure? I think there's a South American monkey that has much
>>>> larger testicles and extreme sperm competition.
>>> Monkeys are not apes.
>
>> Non sequitur.
>
> The original comment was intended to refer to apes regardless of the
> words used. Monkeys are not apes.
>
Martin Edwards
Actually, no. The former Roman Catholic primate of all Ireland just
died and that was the way it was reported. Interestingly both the Roman
and the Anglican archbishoprics are at Armagh, in the Republic.
igor
Depends on which cheek your talking about.
Stewart Robert Hinsley
<big_m...@Yahoo.com> writes
>Actually, no. The former Roman Catholic primate of all Ireland just
>died and that was the way it was reported. Interestingly both the
>Roman and the Anglican archbishoprics are at Armagh, in the Republic.
Except that Armagh is in the United Kingdom. Fide Wikipedia there are
two Anglican Archbishoprics in Ireland - Armagh and Dublin (the Primates
of All Ireland and of Ireland respectively). The Catholic Church has 4
archdioceses in Ireland.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:36:05 -0500, Matt Giwer <ma...@giwersworld.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Chimps have the largest testicles amongst primates. They have a great
>>>>>> deal of sperm competition.
>>>>> Are you sure? I think there's a South American monkey that has much
>>>>> larger testicles and extreme sperm competition.
>>>> Monkeys are not apes.
>>> Non sequitur.
>> The original comment was intended to refer to apes regardless of
>> the words used. Monkeys are not apes.
> Everybody's got something to hide.
As with the monkeys who hide their tails to pretend to be Brits.
--
The greater the gap between rich and poor the richer the poor.
I do not explain it. I do not use it to justify the gap.
I simply note it as a fact.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4204
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Fri Jan 1 14:27:21 EST 2010
Howard Brazee
<jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Monkeys are not apes.
>
>> Non sequitur.
>
> The original comment was intended to refer to apes regardless of the words
>used. Monkeys are not apes.
How are we to know what was intended? What was written was
"primates". Everybody who can read minds across the Internet please
raise your hands.
Howard Brazee
<grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Islam added only a prohibition against publicly flaunting it while
>> preserving the cheek kissing and public handholding and other signs of
>> affection between men.
>
>Nope, I still don't care about any of this. Also, dude, you think
>cheek kissing is a sign of homosexuality? sticking your schlong in
>some other guy's butt is a sign of homosexuality. Cheek kissing is
>just... cheek kissing.
He didn't state his thought about that - he reported on what Islam
did.
But it is interesting that as long as the U.S.S.R. denied that
homosexuality existed within its borders, there was a lot more
man-to-man hugging and cheek kissing and other signs of affection
between men. They weren't afraid of being branded homosexual, and
could just be friends. When they found out that homosexuality did
in-fact, exist there, many men cut back on this kind of public
displays.
Matt Giwer
The definition of a matriarchy is always problematic. We do not have them
today so there is no functioning matriarchy to observe the details of the
context.
But try it this way. The wife cannot be convicted of any crime because her
husband is responsible for her actions and only he can punish her for a public
crime.
A woman cannot appear in court nor administer her own property. Only male
relative can act on her behalf and if that male relative does not wish to be
poisoned at dinner he will do what he is told and suffer legal responsibility
for the actions she demands.
Yes her father has complete control over her as he has over her brothers. Her
father will marry her to a man who will assume complete control over her life
-- considering the poisoning alternative again.
Yet regardless of the pretension of civil and legal representation by a man
title to land and inheritance most always passes through the widowed ex-wife
if for no other reason than longevity which is greater after death in
childbirth is factored out.
The western model of the worst of a male oriented culture is Judaism where
the woman is the biblical inheritor of land and property. When the Aztec
empire was overturned by the Spanish they killed the husbands and married the
wives as the wives owned the land. The takeover was lawful by Aztec law.
I have no particular interest in this matter. I have looked into what is
considered a patriarchy and have found the women had surprisingly more power
and influence than the current mythology suggests. Consider the title of the
play, She Stoops to Conquer. Does it matter whose name is on the monuments and
who gets credit as a great general when the alternative is death on the
battlefield and intrigue in the palace?
Men love to have their name in lights. Women appear to have no such interest
unless they are in Hollywood.
--
What are millions of German troops against
billions of British pounds?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4207
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Fri Jan 1 14:28:52 EST 2010
Matt Giwer
If you think love between men and women only exists when there is fucking you
have some maturing ahead of you.
The western demarcation is much too sharp and is not found in the rest of the
world.
--
We are praying for god to destroy our enemies. Our enemies are praying for
god to destroy us. One of us is wasting their time.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4216
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Fri Jan 1 14:43:57 EST 2010
Bill Snyder
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 23:55:39 -0500, Matt Giwer
><jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Monkeys are not apes.
>>
>>> Non sequitur.
>>
>> The original comment was intended to refer to apes regardless of the words
>>used. Monkeys are not apes.
>
>How are we to know what was intended? What was written was
>"primates". Everybody who can read minds across the Internet please
>raise your hands.
The Cabal (tinc) does not reveal its secrets so easily.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Wayne Throop
: Everybody who can read minds across the Internet please
: raise your hands.
If all I can do is tell if somebody raises their hand
across the internet, should I raise mine?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Jim Lovejoy
>: Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>: Everybody who can read minds across the Internet please
>: raise your hands.
>
> If all I can do is tell if somebody raises their hand
> across the internet, should I raise mine?
Not if you don't already know the answer to that question.
David Johnston
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 01:26:08 -0800 (PST), D�nk
>1010011010
>> According to leftists/liberals, prostitution was
>> created by the patriarchy as a way to oppress womyn.
>> Since ancient pre-christian pagan societies were
>> matriarchal, prostitution did not exist.
>
>And neither of course did slavery, which was a creation
>of the British empire, nor genocide, which was a result
>of white racism, nor ...
You do realize don't you that damned few liberals would say any such
things, right?
James A. Donald
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:13:17 +1000,
> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
Dänk 1010011010
> > > According to leftists/liberals, prostitution was
> > > created by the patriarchy as a way to oppress womyn.
> > > Since ancient pre-christian pagan societies were
> > > matriarchal, prostitution did not exist.
James A. Donald
> > And neither of course did slavery, which was a creation
> > of the British empire, nor genocide, which was a result
> > of white racism, nor ...
David Johnston
> You do realize don't you that damned few liberals would say any such
> things, right?
Let us see what kids are being taught in school: Googling Syllabus
slavery
<http://www.google.com/search?q=syllabus+slavery>
The first hit is "Race and slavery in America"
<http://www.uncg.edu/his/docs/Spring04/Schweninger_301-01.pdf>
The next hit is
<http://faculty.colostate-pueblo.edu/jonathan.rees/slavery.htm>
Which piously tells us that they will be looking at slavery from a
wide range of perspectives, which is of course a total lie, since when
they tell us of those evil white slavers, they never mention who they
purchased the slaves from.
The next hit is more of the same.
The next hit piously tell us "Comparative slavery"
>http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/234/syllabus.htm>
So they are going to compare European enslavement of blacks with arab
enslavement Europeans, right?
You know full well they are not, the very idea is absurd. Whites are
oppressors. All others are victims.
David Johnston
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:42:44 GMT, <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:13:17 +1000,
>> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>D�nk 1010011010
>> > > According to leftists/liberals, prostitution was
>> > > created by the patriarchy as a way to oppress womyn.
>> > > Since ancient pre-christian pagan societies were
>> > > matriarchal, prostitution did not exist.
>
>James A. Donald
>> > And neither of course did slavery, which was a creation
>> > of the British empire, nor genocide, which was a result
>> > of white racism, nor ...
>
>David Johnston
>> You do realize don't you that damned few liberals would say any such
>> things, right?
>
>Let us see what kids are being taught in school: Googling Syllabus
>slavery
>
><http://www.google.com/search?q=syllabus+slavery>
>
>The first hit is "Race and slavery in America"
><http://www.uncg.edu/his/docs/Spring04/Schweninger_301-01.pdf>
Which contains no indications that ancient pre-christian societies
were matriarchal, that slavery originated in the British Empire, or
that genocide was unique to white people.
>
>The next hit is
><http://faculty.colostate-pueblo.edu/jonathan.rees/slavery.htm>
>Which piously tells us that they will be looking at slavery from a
>wide range of perspectives, which is of course a total lie, since when
>they tell us of those evil white slavers, they never mention who they
>purchased the slaves from.
You are making a totally unsupported assumption about what that course
teaches.
>
>The next hit is more of the same.
You mean, absolutely nothing to support your claims?
James A. Donald
wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:31:28 +1000, James A. Donald
> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:42:44 GMT, <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:13:17 +1000,
> >> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >>
> >Dänk 1010011010
> >> > > According to leftists/liberals, prostitution was
> >> > > created by the patriarchy as a way to oppress womyn.
> >> > > Since ancient pre-christian pagan societies were
> >> > > matriarchal, prostitution did not exist.
James A. Donald
> >> > And neither of course did slavery, which was a creation
> >> > of the British empire, nor genocide, which was a result
> >> > of white racism, nor ...
David Johnston
> >> You do realize don't you that damned few liberals would say any such
> >> things, right?
James A. Donald:
> >Let us see what kids are being taught in school: Googling Syllabus
> >slavery
> >
> ><http://www.google.com/search?q=syllabus+slavery>
> >
> >The first hit is "Race and slavery in America"
> ><http://www.uncg.edu/his/docs/Spring04/Schweninger_301-01.pdf>
David Johnston
> Which contains no indications that ancient pre-christian societies
> were matriarchal, that slavery originated in the British Empire, or
> that genocide was unique to white people.
Sure it does: We never hear who those slave *traders* purchased the
slaves from, the implication therefore is that there was no slavery of
colored people by colored people, let alone slavery of white people by
colored people.
Patriarchy is white and Christian, slavery is imposed by white
Christians, etc. Color is the opposite of patriarchy, slavery, and
genocide. It does not explicitly say that the rest were matriarchal
etc, but it certainly contains "an indication" that the rest were
matriarchal, free, etc.
> >The next hit is
> ><http://faculty.colostate-pueblo.edu/jonathan.rees/slavery.htm>
> >Which piously tells us that they will be looking at slavery from a
> >wide range of perspectives, which is of course a total lie, since when
> >they tell us of those evil white slavers, they never mention who they
> >purchased the slaves from.
> You are making a totally unsupported assumption about what that course
> teaches.
The web page tells us what they teach.
Where is the perspective of white christians enslaved by coffee
colored Muslims?
Michael Price
It's pretty clear actually, the girls run things. The inventors of
the
term were hardly unclear on what it meant.
> We do not have them today so there is no functioning matriarchy to
> observe the details of the context.
>
> But try it this way. The wife cannot be convicted of any crime
> because her husband is responsible for her actions and only he can
> punish her for a public crime.
>
> A woman cannot appear in court nor administer her own property. Only male
> relative can act on her behalf and if that male relative does not wish to be
> poisoned at dinner he will do what he is told and suffer legal responsibility
> for the actions she demands.
>
Why would he expect to be poisoned at dinner? In most of these
societies good poisons weren't known. That is to say poisons that
would work quickly or be tasteless enough for someone to eat
unsuspectingly.
> Yes her father has complete control over her as he has over her
> brothers. Her father will marry her to a man who will assume
> complete control over her life -- considering the poisoning alternative again.
>
And you think that's a significant factor, why?
> Yet regardless of the pretension of civil and legal representation
> by a man title to land and inheritance most always passes through
> the widowed ex-wife if for no other reason than longevity which is
> greater after death in childbirth is factored out.
>
But only an idiot would factor it out before the invention of modern
obstetrics. Death in childbirth was a major factor and therefore in
the
absence of continual warfare most men would outlive their wives.
> The western model of the worst of a male oriented culture is Judaism
> where the woman is the biblical inheritor of land and property.
Ummm... where does it say that? In every bible story I've ever
heard
the father determines inheritance.
> When the Aztec empire was overturned by the Spanish they killed the
> husbands and married the wives as the wives owned the land. The
> takeover was lawful by Aztec law.
>
I doubt very much that is true. The Spanish didn't give two hoots
about
what was lawful under Aztec law. In any case I very much doubt that
it's lawful to kill people under Aztec law without the King's OK,
which
they didn't have, so inheritance is a moot point.
> I have no particular interest in this matter. I have looked into what is
> considered a patriarchy and have found the women had surprisingly
> more power and influence than the current mythology suggests.
> Consider the title of the play, She Stoops to Conquer.
You're going on names?
> Does it matter
> whose name is on the monuments and who gets credit as a great
> general when the alternative is death on the battlefield and intrigue in
> the palace?
>
> Men love to have their name in lights. Women appear to have no such
> interest unless they are in Hollywood.
>
> --
> What are millions of German troops against
> billions of British pounds?
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 4207
> http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/Antisemitism a10
David Johnston
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:29:19 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:31:28 +1000, James A. Donald
>> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:42:44 GMT, <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:13:17 +1000,
>> >> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >D�nk 1010011010
>> >> > > According to leftists/liberals, prostitution was
>> >> > > created by the patriarchy as a way to oppress womyn.
>> >> > > Since ancient pre-christian pagan societies were
>> >> > > matriarchal, prostitution did not exist.
>
>James A. Donald
>> >> > And neither of course did slavery, which was a creation
>> >> > of the British empire, nor genocide, which was a result
>> >> > of white racism, nor ...
>
>David Johnston
>> >> You do realize don't you that damned few liberals would say any such
>> >> things, right?
>
>James A. Donald:
>> >Let us see what kids are being taught in school: Googling Syllabus
>> >slavery
>> >
>> ><http://www.google.com/search?q=syllabus+slavery>
>> >
>> >The first hit is "Race and slavery in America"
>> ><http://www.uncg.edu/his/docs/Spring04/Schweninger_301-01.pdf>
>
>David Johnston
>> Which contains no indications that ancient pre-christian societies
>> were matriarchal, that slavery originated in the British Empire, or
>> that genocide was unique to white people.
>
>Sure it does: We never hear who those slave *traders* purchased the
>slaves from,
You know maybe you should read your cites instead of just assuming
they support you:
Friday, January 23
Lecture: The African Slave Trade, Part I
CThe Diligent: king Agaja of Dahomey, cowry shells
And no, teaching a course on your own nation's history does NOT mean
that no other nations had any history.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Jan 2, 6:43 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > A woman cannot appear in court nor administer her own property. Only male
> > relative can act on her behalf and if that male relative does not wish to be
> > poisoned at dinner he will do what he is told and suffer legal responsibility
> > for the actions she demands.
> >
> Why would he expect to be poisoned at dinner? In most of these
> societies good poisons weren't known. That is to say poisons that
> would work quickly or be tasteless enough for someone to eat
> unsuspectingly.
That depends what her cooking is like. When she's not /intentionally/
poisoning him, I mean.
hypa...@comcast.net
> On Dec 28, 4:26 am, Dänk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 5:29 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2009/11/sacred-prostitution.html
>
> > > Wednesday, November 18, 2009
>
> > > Sacred prostitution
>
> > > Sacred prostitution or temple prostitution is the practice of engaging
> > > in sexual intercourse with clients for a religious or sacred purpose.
> > > As with secular prostitution, a fee is usually charged, though in this
> > > instance a portion is remitted to the temple or to the religious
> > > authorities. A person engaged in such behavior is sometimes called a
> > > hierodule. Given the religious and cultic significance of the
> > > practice, modern connotations of the term prostitute may or may not be
> > > appropriate.
>
> > > Aspects of temple prostitution have been found in ancient Mesopotamia,
> > > ancient Israel, ancient Greece, pre-Columbian America, modern India,
> > > and elsewhere. Because of the importance of the bible in our
> > > civilization, the references embedded in the Hebrew bible form the
> > > central focus of the following discussion...
>
> > patriarchy as a way to oppress womyn. Since ancient pre-christian
> > pagan societies were matriarchal, prostitution did not exist.
>
Sound of Trumpet is a fundamentalist Christian with next to
no knowledge of history. He tries to make up for this by lying.
hypa...@comcast.net
> Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> >http://crap.com
>
> > Wednesday, November 18, 2009
>
> > Sacred prostitution
>
> in many "liberal" histories. How did that ever happen if liberals deny
> it existed?
>
> This whole article is a pack of lies, just like most of those this loon
> quotes.
So-called 'temple prostitution' was only called that because
it was rediscovered by Victorians. The woman and men who
engaged in sex during pagan rites and religious celebrations
did this for religious reasons. There was nothing shameful
in it, except to Victorian and modern fundamentalist Christian
dirty 'minds'.
Christopher A. Lee
What is interesting is that they were considered virgins and that any
issue was considered to be the god's.
Wexford
???????????????????????????????
> The definition of a matriarchy is always problematic. We do not have them
> today so there is no functioning matriarchy to observe the details of the
> context.
There never were any. The concept of some ancient matriarchal society
is a Freudian myth.
Wexford
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:04:58 +1000, James A. Donald
>
>
>
>
>
> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:29:19 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:31:28 +1000, James A. Donald
> >> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:42:44 GMT, <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:13:17 +1000,
> >> >> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
I'm not sure what the point is, anyway. Sure, blacks conquered,
captured and sold other blacks, just as whites did the same to other
whites, etc. Slavery in the Americas existed because European whites
bought blacks and transported them to the New World. It was a brutal,
shameful practice perpetrated by people who professed to be Christian,
who claimed to love their neighbor and, at least in the British
colonies, who professed to believe in the sacred right of people to be
free. White North Americans knew it was a disgusting trade, a horrible
way to treat human beings, but they did it anyway because slave labor
enabled them to create profits from crops like tobacco and indigo, and
because the British virtually outlawed any other form of business. The
fact that blacks sold blacks does nothing to exonerate the White
majority in N American.
James A. Donald
<wry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what the point is, anyway. Sure, blacks
> conquered, captured and sold other blacks, just as
> whites did the same to other whites, etc. Slavery in
> the Americas existed because European whites bought
> blacks and transported them to the New World. It was a
> brutal, shameful practice perpetrated by people who
> professed to be Christian, who claimed to love their
> neighbor and, at least in the British colonies, who
> professed to believe in the sacred right of people to
> be free. White North Americans knew it was a
> disgusting trade, a horrible way to treat human
> beings, but they did it anyway because slave labor
> enabled them to create profits from crops like tobacco
> and indigo, and because the British virtually outlawed
> any other form of business. The fact that blacks sold
> blacks does nothing to exonerate the White majority in
> N American.
Slavery by fascists and communists far outweighs slavery
by Americans, and slavery by Muslims went on for much
longer, and a lot of the victims were Americans, yet
somehow that does not get covered.
The history is grotesquely one sided. If you say that it
should only cover American history - well why is no one
else covering the shameful parts of their own history,
and why is no one covering the parts of American history
where white Christian Americans were enslaved by brown
skinned peoples?
James A. Donald
> conquered, captured and sold other blacks, just as
> whites did the same to other whites, etc. Slavery in
> the Americas existed because European whites bought
> blacks and transported them to the New World. It was a
> brutal, shameful practice perpetrated by people who
> professed to be Christian, who claimed to love their
> neighbor and, at least in the British colonies, who
> professed to believe in the sacred right of people to
> be free. White North Americans knew it was a
> disgusting trade, a horrible way to treat human
> beings, but they did it anyway because slave labor
> enabled them to create profits from crops like tobacco
> and indigo, and because the British virtually outlawed
> any other form of business. The fact that blacks sold
> blacks does nothing to exonerate the White majority in
> N American.
We googled the world, not just America. Why is almost
all slavery on the internet committed by white Christian
Americans, when the vast majority of slavery in reality
is committed by brown skinned people, and continues
to this today.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> So-called 'temple prostitution' was only called that because
> it was rediscovered by Victorians. The woman and men who
> engaged in sex during pagan rites and religious celebrations
> did this for religious reasons. There was nothing shameful
> in it, except to Victorian and modern fundamentalist Christian
> dirty 'minds'.
Why don't we do it for religious reasons? Or do we and nobody's told
me?
Z.Z. ANTIQUITIES.com
wrote:
> http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2009/11/sacred-prostitution.html
>
> Wednesday, November 18, 2009
>
> Sacred prostitution
>
> Sacred prostitution or temple prostitution is the practice of engaging
> in sexual intercourse with clients for a religious or sacred purpose.
> As with secular prostitution, a fee is usually charged, though in this
> instance a portion is remitted to the temple or to the religious
> authorities. A person engaged in such behavior is sometimes called a
> hierodule. Given the religious and cultic significance of the
> practice, modern connotations of the term prostitute may or may not be
> appropriate.
>
> Aspects of temple prostitution have been found in ancient Mesopotamia,
> ancient Israel, ancient Greece, pre-Columbian America, modern India,
> and elsewhere. Because of the importance of the bible in our
> civilization, the references embedded in the Hebrew bible form the
> central focus of the following discussion.
>
> Kedeshim, the male hierodules that figure in the Hebrew bible--so
> often neglected in favor of their better-known female counterparts.
>
> Let us review the facts that have been generally accepted, at least
> until recent years.
>
> Qadesh (pl. qedeshim) is a Hebrew term that literally means "holy or
> consecrated one." Formerly rendered "sodomite" (as in the King James
> Version) it is more accurately translated as "male cult prostitute" in
> modern translations of the scriptures. It is a key term for
> understanding a major aspect of same-sex behavior in ancient Israel.
> The word occurs as a common noun at least six times (Deuteronomy
> 23:18, I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46, II Kings 23:7, Job 36:14).
> According to Warren Johansson (whose analysis in the Encyclopedia of
> Homosexuality I follow in the succeeding paragraphs), it can also be
> restored on the basis of textual criticism in II Kings 23:24 (=
> Septuagint of II Chronicles 35:19a) and in Hosea 11:12. These passages
> all ostensibly designate foreigners (non-Israelites) who served as
> sacred prostitutes in the Kingdom of Judah, specifically within the
> precincts of the first Temple (ca. 950-622 B.C.).
>
> That these men had sexual relations with other males and not with
> women is proven by Hosea 4:14, which castigates the males exclusively
> for "spending their manhood" in drunken orgies with hierodules, while
> their wives remained at home, alone and unsatisfied, and by the
> reading of Isaiah 65:3 in the Qumran manuscript: "And they (m. pl.)
> sucked their phalli upon the stones."
>
> Their involvement in Canaanite polytheism, an obvious rival of the
> monotheistic Yahweh religion, fostered the biblical equation of
> homosexuality with idolatry and paganism and the exclusion of the
> individual engaging in homosexual activity from the "congregation of
> Israel," an exclusion persisting in the fundamentalist condemnation of
> all homosexual expression to this day.?
> To understand that the condemnation of the qadesh was a cultic
> prohibition and the self-definition of a religious community, not a
> moral judgment on other acts taking place outside the sphere of the
> sacral, it is necessary to see the qadesh or male hierodule (with the
> qedishah as his female counterpart) in his historical and cultural
> setting, as a part of Northwest Semitic religion on the territory of
> the Kingdom of Judah down to the reforms of King Josiah (622 B.C.).
> The commandments forbidding male same-sex activity on pain of death in
> the Holiness Code (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) were, in all likelihood,
> added only in the Persian period (first half of the fifth century BCE
> specifically). Critical scholarship generally dates the Holiness Code
> to the beginning of that period, but Martin Noth in his influential
> commentary on Leviticus (Philadelphia, 1965) ascribes this part of
> Leviticus to a time slightly after 520 BCE, when the new and reformed
> Jewish religion set about throwing off all the associations believed
> responsible for the catastrophe of 586, the destruction of the first
> Temple and the exile of the bulk of the population of Judah to
> Babylon. The proof of the later origin of the verses indicated above
> is the prophetic reading ("haphtarah") for the portion of the Torah
> including Leviticus 18, namely Ezekiel 22:10-11, a comparison of which
> shows that Ezekiel was alluding to a text which in the final years of
> the First Commonwealth began with Leviticus 18:7 and ended with 18:20,
> as if to say "You have committed every sexual sin in the book."
> ?
> Derrick Sherwin Bailey, in his Homosexuality and the Western Christian
> Tradition (London, 1955), argued that the qedeshim "served the female
> worshipper.” However, it is unlikely that women were admitted to the
> Temple, then or later, and all parallels from the religious life of
> antiquity, from Cyprus to Mesopotamia, involve male homosexual
> connection. Designations for the male prostitute in Hebrew and
> Phoenician are "dog" {kelebh) and "puppy" (gar), notably in
> Deuteronomy 23:17, where the kelebh is set in parallel to the zonah
> "(female) prostitute." In Isaiah 3:4 the word ta'alullm is rendered
> effeminati by St. Jerome; it means "males who are sexually abused by
> others," = German Schandbuben. Another likely reference is Isaiah 2:6,
> the closing hemistich of which Jerome translated etpueris alienis
> adhaeserunt, while the Aramaic pseudo-Jonathan Targum euphemistically
> renders the text "And they walked in the ways of the gentiles," in
> which the Hebrew verb has an Arabic cognate that means "they loved
> tenderly." InHosea 11:12a slight emendation, together with comparison
> again of the Arabic meaning of the verb in the first half of the
> parallel, yields the meaning "And Judah is still untrue to God/but
> faithful to kedeshlm."
>
> The preceding analysis, deriving from the careful work of Warren
> Johansson, is somewhat technical. Yet Johansson goes on to pose some
> more general questions.
> ?
> “How could male prostitutes fit into the scheme of Northwest Semitic -
> specifically Canaanite - religion during the First Commonwealth?
> Foreign as the notion is to the modem religious consciousness, the
> worship of Ishtar and Tammuz was a fertility cult in which union with
> the hierodule consecrated to the service of the goddess was thought to
> have magical functions and powers. Such hierodules could be either
> male or female, and the singular qadesh in I Kings 14:24 is to be
> taken as a collective, meaning ‘hierodules as a professional caste’
> who were ‘in the land,’ practicing their foreign rites. The males may
> even have been eunuchs, though the context of Job 36:14 ‘Their soul
> dieth in youth, and their life at the hierodules' age’ suggests that
> they were adolescent prostitutes [not unlike] the bar or street
> hustler of today. Furthermore, place names containing the element
> Kadesh, such as the one in Genesis 14:7, which also was called
> Enmishpat "Spring of Judgment" indicate the locales of shrines whose
> personnel had both erotic and mantic functions. This is independently
> confirmed by the glosses on the Septuagint renderings of qadesh and
> qedeshah in Deuteronomy 23:18.”
>
> I turn now to the broader context, which is succinctly detailed in the
> Hebrew Bible itself. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 warns:
>
> “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a kedeshah, nor shall any of
> the sons of Israel be a kadesh. You shall not bring the hire of a
> prostitute (zonah) or the wages of a dog (keleb) into the house of the
> Lord your God to pay a vow, for both of these are an abomination to
> the Lord your God.”
>
> Here the two sacred prostitutes, male and female, are brought into
> parallel. Similarly, with their secular counterparts. The whole forms
> a perfect chiastic square.
>
> In my view, nothing could be clearer. Nonetheless, during the last few
> decades several schools of revisionism have arisen that strive to deny
> the historicity of sacred prostitution in the ancient Middle East.
>
> Robert A. Oden (The Bible without Theology, Urbana, 1999) holds that
> the concept of sacred prostitution is an invention, a kind of slander
> without foundation, designed to embarrass the Israelites' neighbors.
> This claim recalls the controversial assertion of William Arens (The
> Man-Eating Myth, 1980) that the ascription of cannibalism to tribal
> and early historical peoples is simply a manifestation of prejudice.
> In his view, there is no evidence supporting the widespread belief
> that cannibalism has been a socially accepted practice in certain
> cultures. Let us not mince words. Arens' claim is clearly absurd. As
> the years have gone by, archaeologists and anthropologists have
> presented masses of evidence that has surfaced showing that all around
> the world there have been societies in which cannibalism has been a
> commonplace ritual practice. Arens’s denialism seems to have been
> motivated by a kind of political correctness, one that seeks to deny
> any aspersions that might be cast on cultures that were formerly
> thought to be savage, but are now hailed as paragons of third-world
> virtue. Similar motivations seem to lie behind the denial of the
> reality of sacred prostitution in ancient Israel.
>
> The most massive assault on the idea so far stems from the classical
> scholar Stephanie Lynn Budin in her book The Myth of Sacred
> Prostitution in Antiquity” (Cambridge. 2008. On page one she states
> her thesis in peremptory fashion: "Sacred prostitution never existed
> in the ancient Near East or Mediterranean.”
>
> Most reviwers are inclined to accept Budin’s contention that some of
> the of the texts commonly cited to refer to sacred prostitution
> actually do not do so. These texts may have something to do with
> prostitution, but not the special form of it being considered here.
> That is the case, it seems, with texts by Pindar, Strabo, Klearkhos,
> Justinus, Valerius Maximus, which Budin parses in great detail.
>
> But so what? These texts stem from classical antiquity, where sacred
> prostitution has never been held to be of central importance. The key
> area is the ancient Middle East, and here Budin falls down. She relies
> on the renderings in Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts (published
> in 1969) as a point of reference. Yet this outdated publication has
> been replaced by other, more accurate translations, which she seems
> not to have consulted. She does use the standard Sumerian and Akkadian
> dictionaries, but cherry-picks the evidence so as to omit judgments by
> other scholars that terms in those languages do in fact refer to
> sacred prostitution.
>
> There are more general problems. Budin narrowly defines sacred
> prostitution as always requiring a direct quid-pro-quo. A specified
> portion of the money received must be rendered to the deity. However,
> sacred prostitution has not always worked this way, as evidence from
> modern India suggests. One observer reports, for example, having
> encountered a male prostitute who frequented the precinct of a Hindu
> temple. This man suggested that sexual congress with him would partake
> of the sacred, but there was no question of his tithing to the temple.
>
> Another dubious technique Budin employs is the argumentum e silentio.
> Because excavations and other research have not found uncontrovertible
> evidence, she thinks that the practice did not exist. This claim is
> hardly persuasive: no archaeological evidence has been found to
> confirm or deny the existence of Saul, David, and Solomon but most
> laypeople--and quite a few scholars--stubbornly continue to believe in
> their existence. Archaeology does not respond to questions of this
> kind.
>
> Space does not permit further review of these revisionist arguments,
> which are proliferating. Ir is my view that, aa regards the Hebrew
> bible, they fail completely.
>
> However, let us play devil's advocate. If sacred prostitution was a
> myth, why was it invented? The Early Christians did indeed have a
> motive to cast aspersions on pagan decadence. However, the
> revisionists (taking their cue from Edward Said) ascribe the main
> element in the supposed invention to 19th-century Orientalism, which
> ascribes strange erotic practices to the Middle Eastern “Other.”
>
> One may acknowledge that such prejudices played some role. However.
> they must be set aside in a dispassionate examination of the issue.
> The revisionists have not done this.
>
> What, one may ask, are the reasons underlying their insistent denial?
> One, I suspect, is simple prudery. It is much nicer to regard the
> qedeshot and qedeshim as harmless functionaries and bureaucrats than
> as sex workers remitting a portion of their earnings to the temple.
> Feminist concerns also seem to play an important role. Sex-trafficking
> is an ugly reality in the world today. It should be stamped out. But
> nothing is gained in this cause by denying historical realities.
Hi,
I found this essay/article(?) very interesting examining the veracity
of existence of the phenomenon known as temple prostitution.
I myself am pursuing my master's degree in archaeology, live in
Jerusalem for the past 14 years, and speak, read, and write fluent
Hebrew (incl. ancient Biblical Hebrew).
It seems to me from my dealing in antiquities, my reading of the
bible, as well as study of archaeology, that temple prostitution did
exist. The word Kadesh/a does indeed imply a religious aspect
(connected in root letters/meaning to Kadosh, meaning Holy). And in
other parts of the Bible we learn the meaning through context/
comparison that Kadesh/a is indeed some sort of religious whoredom,
perhaps with guise of helping "fertility" of the religious pilgrim
(client).
We have some very nice Astarte (Ashtoret) ancient Israelite/Canaanite
fertility idols where the woman portrayed grasps her breasts
seductively from beneath. It is clear such an ancient idol was used
in worship or as some sort of ancient pornography image with intent to
arouse and implant erotic thoughts into the visitor who views such an
image/idol.
kindest regards,
Z.Z. ANTIQUITIES.com
I found this essay/article(?) very interesting examining the veracity
of existence of the phenomenon known as temple prostitution.
I myself am pursuing my master's degree in archaeology, live in
Jerusalem for the past 14 years, and speak, read, and write fluent
Hebrew (incl. ancient Biblical Hebrew).
It seems to me from my dealing in antiquities, my reading of the
bible, as well as study of archaeology, that temple prostitution did
exist. The word Kadesh/a does indeed imply a religious aspect
(connected in root letters/meaning to Kadosh, meaning Holy). And in
other parts of the Bible we learn the meaning through context/
comparison that Kadesh/a is indeed some sort of religious whore,
perhaps with guise of helping "fertility" of the religious pilgrim
(client).
We have some very nice Astarte (Ashtoret) ancient Israelite/Canaanite
fertility idols available for sale/export where the sculpted woman
portrayed poses and grasps her breasts
Richard R. Hershberger
My guess is that it is because and English language search of the
internet is likely to produce Anglo-centric (in the linguistic sense)
results, and particularly with an emphasis on U.S. interests. I do
not know why you are surprised that this results in an emphasis on
U.S. history.
James A. Donald
> > We googled the world, not just America. Why is
> > almost all slavery on the internet committed by
> > white Christian Americans, when the vast majority of
> > slavery in reality is committed by brown skinned
> > people, and continues to this today.
"Richard R. Hershberger"
> My guess is that it is because and English language
> search of the internet is likely to produce
> Anglo-centric (in the linguistic sense) results, and
> particularly with an emphasis on U.S. interests. I do
> not know why you are surprised that this results in an
> emphasis on U.S. history.
Let us try googling up syllabus and all the massacres,
tortures, and acts of cannibalism committed by the
native Americans.
Let us try googling up syllabus and native American
slavery.
You will find that some parts of American history and
some matters affecting US interests somehow do not get
covered.
Richard R. Hershberger
You seem to imagine that this somehow contradicts what I wrote. You
asked why there is an emphasis on the actions of English speakers.
English speakers tend to be interested in the history of English
speakers. This is unremarkable.
As for "googling up syllabus [sic]", I feel no obligation to do your
homework, even were I to stipulate that you have managed to stumble
upon a relevant idea. But knock yourself out.
For what it is worth, in my reading non-extensive reading of pre-
Columbian American history the distasteful aspects of some meso-
American cultures gets prominent play. I don't know of any practice
of cannibalism in pre-Columbian North American cultures, but I would
be happy to see what you've got.
Richard R. Hershberger
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 1:17�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:04:58 +1000, James A. Donald
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:29:19 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:31:28 +1000, James A. Donald
>> >> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:42:44 GMT, �<da...@block.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:13:17 +1000,
>> >> >> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >D�nk 1010011010
His point is really that all the teaching about British-American
slavery should be about how it was justified by other people also
doing it.
James A. Donald
> > > > Why is
> > > > almost all slavery on the internet committed by
> > > > white Christian Americans, when the vast majority of
> > > > slavery in reality is committed by brown skinned
> > > > people, and continues to this today.
"Richard R. Hershberger"
> > > Anglo-centric (in the linguistic sense) results, and
> > > particularly with an emphasis on U.S. interests.
James A. Donald:
> > Let us try googling up syllabus and all the massacres,
> > tortures, and acts of cannibalism committed by the
> > native Americans.
"Richard R. Hershberger"
> You seem to imagine that this somehow contradicts what I wrote.
> You
> asked why there is an emphasis on the actions of English speakers.
> English speakers tend to be interested in the history of English
> speakers. This is unremarkable.
Should there not also be a similar emphasis on English speakers being
enslaved, tortured and eaten?
Robert Bannister
> On Jan 4, 1:17 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:04:58 +1000, James A. Donald
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:29:19 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:31:28 +1000, James A. Donald
>>>> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:42:44 GMT, <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:13:17 +1000,
>>>>>> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
Um, which time period are you talking about when whites kept white slaves?
Slavery in the Americas existed because European whites
> bought blacks and transported them to the New World. It was a brutal,
> shameful practice perpetrated by people who professed to be Christian,
> who claimed to love their neighbor and, at least in the British
> colonies, who professed to believe in the sacred right of people to be
> free.
Part of the problem was that they treated their own workers little
better. True, they were not sold and were rarely whipped, but the
English mill workers lived and worked in disgusting conditions. Then
there were the "scientists" who "proved" that Africans were subhuman,
which of course made it all right even though these people would not
have treated the horses that way.
White North Americans knew it was a disgusting trade, a horrible
> way to treat human beings, but they did it anyway because slave labor
> enabled them to create profits from crops like tobacco and indigo, and
> because the British virtually outlawed any other form of business. The
> fact that blacks sold blacks does nothing to exonerate the White
> majority in N American.
Regrettably, slavery is still practised today although it's covered up a
lot more.
--
Rob Bannister
James A. Donald
I had in mind the enslavement of white Christian Americans by coffee
colored Muslims, by Japanese emperor worshipping fascists, and by
native Americans.
Small stuff, you might well argue compared to the slave trade in
blacks, but large enough to deserve some mention. After all, America
had quite a few wars with Islamic states over the issue, which surely
has some relevance to today's concerns. After all, did not the
syllabus say they wanted to give *all* perspectives on slavery?
Richard R. Hershberger
There is a bias toward showing English speakers as the actors, not the
acted-upon. I don't imagine this is peculiar to English speakers. I
would expect, for example, French histories to emphasize French
speakers as the actors rather than the acted-upon.
This bias is unfortunate. The raids of the Barbary pirates into
northern Europe, for example, throw light on the political situation
of the era. Better historians make an effort to include this sort of
material. The bias is not, however, politically motivated. A
politically motivated historian who wishes to portray English speakers
as peculiarly wicked will de-emphasize the Barbary pirate raids
because it reveals non-English-speakers as similarly wicked. A
politically motivated historian who wishes to portray English-speakers
in a triumphal manner will de-emphasize the raids because it shows the
English-speakers as helpless victims. In both cases the problem is
narrow parochialism.
The valid critique from the left is that traditional histories
systematically suffered from such parochialism. The histories of non-
Europeans were ignored apart from their interactions with Europeans,
and then they were only considered from the European perspective. The
insistance on broadening the scope of study to non-Europeans is all to
the good.
The problem is that some have overshot the mark, replacing Eurocentric
parochialism with anti-European parochialism. The results cannot be
anything other than silly.
The complementary error is to imagine that the errors of the most
silly are broadly held. It is easy to cherry pick academic folly, but
it's not as if meso-American cannibalism or Barbary pirate slaving
raids are a deep secret suppressed by the Academy. All that we really
have here is the banality that there are bad histories and good
histories.
James A. Donald
> > > > > > Why is
> > > > > > almost all slavery on the internet committed by
"Richard R. Hershberger"
> > > > > Anglo-centric (in the linguistic sense) results, and
> > > > > particularly with an emphasis on U.S. interests.
James A. Donald:
> > Should there not also be a similar emphasis on English speakers being
> > enslaved, tortured and eaten?
"Richard R. Hershberger"
> There is a bias toward showing English speakers as the actors, not the
> acted-upon.
If there was a bias towards action how come children are no longer
taught the story of Daniel Boon, what the line in the Marine Battle
Hymn "to the shores of Tripoli" refers to, and the line "Millions for
defense and not one cent for tribute"?
If there was a bias towards action, how come they don't show English
speakers intervening around the world to end slavery and to protect
minorities from rape and massacre?
Now, kids are taught history without ever knowing what these were
about, a grotesquely distorted and one sided history.
This shows and overwhelming bias towards teaching hatred of white
people, hatred of Christians, and hatred of English speakers.
Bad actions by such people are shown, good actions are concealed. Bad
actions against such people are concealed. Utterly trivial good
actions towards such people are given absurd prominence, and closely
linked to bad actions by such people.
> This bias is unfortunate. The raids of the Barbary pirates into
> northern Europe, for example, throw light on the political situation
> of the era. Better historians make an effort to include this sort of
> material. The bias is not, however, politically motivated.
If not politically motivated, why then is the reasons and outcome of
the Barbary wars not covered?
Wexford
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. I'm saying that if you study American history, you can't deny the
fact that the founding fathers allowed a country to emerge in which
about 20% of the population were black slaves. Nazis and Communists
were infinetly worse, but their crimes don't exonerate ours.
Wexford
> James A. Donald:
>
> > > > > > > Why is
> > > > > > > almost all slavery on the internet committed by
> > > > > > > white Christian Americans?
>
> "Richard R. Hershberger"
>
> > > > > > Anglo-centric (in the linguistic sense) results, and
> > > > > > particularly with an emphasis on U.S. interests.
>
> James A. Donald:
>
> > > Should there not also be a similar emphasis on English speakers being
> > > enslaved, tortured and eaten?
>
> "Richard R. Hershberger"
> > There is a bias toward showing English speakers as the actors, not the
> > acted-upon.
>
> If there was a bias towards action how come children are no longer
> taught the story of Daniel Boon, what the line in the Marine Battle
> Hymn "to the shores of Tripoli" refers to, and the line "Millions for
> defense and not one cent for tribute"?
What makes you think that they aren't?
>
> If there was a bias towards action, how come they don't show English
> speakers intervening around the world to end slavery and to protect
> minorities from rape and massacre?
Are you referring to British anti-slavery policy? It wasn't universal
and it wasn't particularly effective. Why don't they show the Brits
turing their backs on the Irish and letting 1,000,000 of them starve
to death?
>
> Now, kids are taught history without ever knowing what these were
> about, a grotesquely distorted and one sided history.
I think you have a distorted sense of history.
>
> This shows and overwhelming bias towards teaching hatred of white
> people, hatred of Christians, and hatred of English speakers.
Black people are overwhemingly Christian in the United States.
>
> Bad actions by such people are shown, good actions are concealed. Bad
> actions against such people are concealed. Utterly trivial good
> actions towards such people are given absurd prominence, and closely
> linked to bad actions by such people.
Look, when I grew up the prevaling propaganda (because that's what it
was) immersed us in the goodness and greatness of the United States,
the land of the free and home of the brave. It wasn't until I was an
adult that I ever heard of the agonies we caused Indians, even Indians
who had been allied with us. I knew of slavery as an historic event,
long since ended, but, living in the North, didn't fully realize the
imact that racism and slavery had on life in the United States. No
country bears a history that is unstained by bloodletting and
persecution of some minority. The idea that we should balance the
propaganda of the heroic anglo tale of America with some sobering
facts about our somtime collective failure to act decently and with
fairness and compassion, and often as oppressors, is the right thing
to do. If we can learn of our failures and admit our guilt, we can
rise above them.
>
> > This bias is unfortunate. The raids of the Barbary pirates into
> > northern Europe, for example, throw light on the political situation
> > of the era. Better historians make an effort to include this sort of
> > material. The bias is not, however, politically motivated.
>
> If not politically motivated, why then is the reasons and outcome of
> the Barbary wars not covered?
Perhaps because the Barbary War was (1) not a terribly important event
and (2) we weren't successful. We managed to lose the frigate
"Philadelphia" and Lt. Decatur, the great hero of the war, had to
sneak in the Caliph's harbor to burn it to the waterline so the
Barbaries wouldn't turn it against our shipping. Hell, it was the
Brits who finally quashed the Barbary Pirates, not us.
Why don't we teach more about the French and Indian War? About the
Revolution itself? About the Quasi-War? About the War of 1812? About
the British Opium trade and the agonies it caused the Chinese? About
the Spanish American war? About our adventures among the banana
Republics?
Wexford
> Wexford wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 1:17 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:04:58 +1000, James A. Donald
>
> >> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:29:19 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:31:28 +1000, James A. Donald
> >>>> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:42:44 GMT, <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:13:17 +1000,
> >>>>>> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
???????????????
> >> And no, teaching a course on your own nation's history does NOT mean
> >> that no other nations had any history.
>
> > I'm not sure what the point is, anyway. Sure, blacks conquered,
> > captured and sold other blacks, just as whites did the same to other
> > whites, etc.
>
> Um, which time period are you talking about when whites kept white slaves?
Slavery existed in Europe for a very long time. For argument's sake,
leave it with the Romans and Byzantium, but there were slaves all
over. I think it was still possible to find white slaves in Europe up
to the 18th century. Serfs, who were little better than slaves,
persisted through the 19th.
>
> Slavery in the Americas existed because European whites
>
> > bought blacks and transported them to the New World. It was a brutal,
> > shameful practice perpetrated by people who professed to be Christian,
> > who claimed to love their neighbor and, at least in the British
> > colonies, who professed to believe in the sacred right of people to be
> > free.
>
> Part of the problem was that they treated their own workers little
> better. True, they were not sold and were rarely whipped, but the
> English mill workers lived and worked in disgusting conditions.
The English countryside wasn't a lot better.
>Then
> there were the "scientists" who "proved" that Africans were subhuman,
> which of course made it all right even though these people would not
> have treated the horses that way.
An odd dichotomy existed among slave owners and their attitudes
towards their slaves. Slave owners knew very well that black slaves
were human beings. They compartmentalized their feelings, however, so
that at the same time they could treat them as chattle. (See
Genovese's book "Roll Jordan Roll"). Hell, they bred children with
enough of them to put white blood into virtually every black in the
United States. The Romans did the same thing, but they did it for so
long they developed a vocabluary and thought pattern that allowed them
to hold and mistreat slaves, whom they knew were human, as pets or
draft animals. The law that governed slavery and slaves in the United
States was bizarre. No one here studies it, because we want to forget
that we ever held slaves, but the Brits and the Aussies have some
legal historians who have made it their field. The law clearly
recognized the humaness of slaves, but saw them as property
nevertheless.
Greg Goss
>> James A. Donald:
>> This shows and overwhelming bias towards teaching hatred of white
>> people, hatred of Christians, and hatred of English speakers.
>
>Black people are overwhemingly Christian in the United States.
There are three black former Ethiopians in my classes. At least two
of them are Christians and both have made major efforts to get me to
reconsider my atheism. So it's not just "in the United States."
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Robert Bannister
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:56:17 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> Um, which time period are you talking about when whites kept white slaves?
>
> I had in mind the enslavement of white Christian Americans by coffee
> colored Muslims, by Japanese emperor worshipping fascists, and by
> native Americans.
That is the problem with using these "colour" words like white, black,
etc. - they are meaningless at the best of times, but if you are going
to use "white" for people who are not traditionally called that, then
confusion reigns.
>
> Small stuff, you might well argue compared to the slave trade in
> blacks, but large enough to deserve some mention. After all, America
> had quite a few wars with Islamic states over the issue, which surely
> has some relevance to today's concerns. After all, did not the
> syllabus say they wanted to give *all* perspectives on slavery?
I don't know what syllabus you are talking about. Perhaps if America
refrained from sticking its nose into other people's affairs and sorted
out its own problems, other countries might think about doing the same.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> An odd dichotomy existed among slave owners and their attitudes
> towards their slaves. Slave owners knew very well that black slaves
> were human beings. They compartmentalized their feelings, however, so
> that at the same time they could treat them as chattle. (See
> Genovese's book "Roll Jordan Roll"). Hell, they bred children with
> enough of them to put white blood into virtually every black in the
> United States. The Romans did the same thing, but they did it for so
> long they developed a vocabluary and thought pattern that allowed them
> to hold and mistreat slaves, whom they knew were human, as pets or
> draft animals. The law that governed slavery and slaves in the United
> States was bizarre. No one here studies it, because we want to forget
> that we ever held slaves, but the Brits and the Aussies have some
> legal historians who have made it their field. The law clearly
> recognized the humaness of slaves, but saw them as property
> nevertheless.
It's not that much more than a century ago when women were more or less
considered to be property in most countries.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
And you take cheques or major credit cards... but you probably didn't
come here /just/ to mention that you have naughty temple lady action
figures for sale.
Although if you /did/, at least one of the groups you're posting into
will
take an interest :-)
panam...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Interesting to hear someone with some education into the matter weigh
in upon the thread. SoT is a well-known troll in alt.atheism, but the
moment he posted the article my first thought (as a liberal, but alas-
not a scholar) was, "..*deny* it? Hey, I *support* it!.."
I've long wondered if one of the reasons humans created religion in
the first place involved fertility rites back when humanity was still
in it's tribal stage.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
James A. Donald
> histories systematically suffered from such
> parochialism.
Rather, the left has created an obsessively parochial
hate America first history, which focusses on American
sins, and to a lesser extent on the sins of the English
speaking peoples.
This America centric history is taught world wide,
except, of course, for the middle east where the history
that is taught is that everything that happens, happens
because of Jews.
> The histories of non- Europeans were ignored apart
> from their interactions with Europeans, and then they
> were only considered from the European perspective.
> The insistance on broadening the scope of study to
> non-Europeans is all to the good.
But in politically correct history actual non europeans
are ignored, except as a morality tale to emphasize the
sins of Americans.
Thus, for example, the first hit that comes up when
googling syllabus africa is
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~ccoe/courses/africa/syllabus.html
The first part of this lengthy web page is all about
music and dance - an area where blacks are innately more
talented than whites.
After scanning through a amazing amount of "cultural"
material, which is to say music and dance, we finally
get, far far down the page, to some actual content, we
get "The myth of ethnicity" (in actual fact it is
glaringly obvious that the differences between one
subsaharan African race and another are large and real,
larger than the differences between whites as a whole
and subsaharan blacks as a whole)
Now observe what is missing: War, law enforcement,
politics, and governance, the areas where blacks do not
do well, the areas whose failure has been a
spectacularly prominent part of African history. Thus
the whole point of this course is not to teach about
Africa, but to teach that Africans are better than
Americans. If they were actually teaching about Africa,
we would see words like Zimbabwe, Mugabe, Botswana, and
Seretse Khama
Similarly, the first hit when googling syllabus china is
http://academic.csuohio.edu/makelaa/history/courses/his374/syl.html
Which is primarily concerned with teaching
that the Chinese revolution was a good thing. For
example, "outline and substantiate reasons for the
failure of the Guomindang (Kuomintang) to create a
viable Republic in China after 1911".
I am pretty sure that any student that observed that the
success of Taiwan is proof that the Republic was
perfectly viable, that it fell on the mainland solely
because of Soviet sponsored attack, and functioned fine
in Taiwan for lack of Soviet naval power, would be
failed, probably required to undergo psychiatric
treatment, and would be required to issue an apology for
racism, sexism, rape and slavery.
> The complementary error is to imagine that the errors
> of the most silly are broadly held. It is easy to
> cherry pick academic folly, but it's not as if
> meso-American cannibalism or Barbary pirate slaving
> raids are a deep secret suppressed by the Academy.
The bizarre excesses are merely the leading edge of an
Academia whose overall content is deeply demented. The
China course does not command the students run around
waving little red books, but "outline and substantiate
reasons for the failure of the Guomindang (Kuomintang)
to create a viable Republic in China after 1911" comes
mighty close.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>> The valid critique from the left is that traditional
>> histories systematically suffered from such
>> parochialism.
>
>Rather, the left has created an obsessively parochial
>hate America first history, which focusses on American
>sins, and to a lesser extent on the sins of the English
>speaking peoples.
Hogwash.
>This America centric history is taught world wide,
>except, of course, for the middle east where the history
>that is taught is that everything that happens, happens
>because of Jews.
Did you ever bother to learn any world history?
...
James A. Donald
> > The history is grotesquely one sided. If you say
> > that it should only cover American history - well
> > why is no one else covering the shameful parts of
> > their own history, and why is no one covering the
> > parts of American history where white Christian
> > Americans were enslaved by brown skinned peoples?-
> > Hide quoted text -
Wexford <wry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No. I'm saying that if you study American history, you
> can't deny the fact that the founding fathers allowed
> a country to emerge in which about 20% of the
> population were black slaves. Nazis and Communists
> were infinetly worse, but their crimes don't exonerate
> ours.
While bad parts of American history existed, so do good
parts. Why not cover Daniel Boone, the shores of
Tripoli, and so on and so forth?
Germany and Japan do not grind the bad parts of their
history into their kids. German history as taught to
German kids is pretty much what you see in "The tin
drum". Poor innocent Germans are brutally attacked by
vicious americans for no very clear reason, apart,
perhaps, from having some good clean fun breaking
windows. And while there may unfortunately have been a
couple of European civil wars, everyone was equally at
fault in causing these regrettable and unfortunate
misunderstandings, which could surely have been
prevented by better communication. And that is what
German kids know about the World Wars. Nazism is
forbidden in Germany - but knowing why it is forbidden,
or what it was, is forcefully discouraged.
jerry warner
> It seems to me from my dealing in antiquities, my reading of the
> bible, as well as study of archaeology, that temple prostitution did
> exist.
Is the Pope Catholic?
Does it take ten phD's to know that!?
Ahhhhh, you want proof. Proof requires phD's ....
or a trip to to TOWN to see the Eelephant'e!
Good luck HOMER!
James A. Donald
> > I had in mind the enslavement of white Christian
> > Americans by coffee colored Muslims, by Japanese
> > emperor worshipping fascists, and by native
> > Americans.
Robert Bannister
> That is the problem with using these "colour" words
> like white, black, etc.
The narrative that kids are being taught is white is
bad, colored is good, so if you cast out words such as
"white", you wind up sneaking such words back in again
under some convoluted politically correct phrase or
other. Perhaps "People of color"? "Rainbow coalition"?
> but if you are going to use "white" for people who are
> not traditionally called that, then confusion reigns.
Who do you think I am referring to when I refer to white
Christian Americans by enslaved by coffee colored
Muslims, by Japanese emperor worshipping fascists, and
by native Americans?
Among others, I am referring to Daniel Boones daughters.
White enough for you?
> > Small stuff, you might well argue compared to the
> > slave trade in blacks, but large enough to deserve
> > some mention. After all, America had quite a few
> > wars with Islamic states over the issue, which
> > surely has some relevance to today's concerns.
> > After all, did not the syllabus say they wanted to
> > give *all* perspectives on slavery?
> I don't know what syllabus you are talking about.
> Perhaps if America refrained from sticking its nose
> into other people's affairs
That Islamic states abducted American citizens as slaves
would seem to be America's affair.
James A. Donald
> Slavery existed in Europe for a very long time. For
> argument's sake, leave it with the Romans and
> Byzantium, but there were slaves all over. I think it
> was still possible to find white slaves in Europe up
> to the 18th century. Serfs, who were little better
> than slaves, persisted through the 19th.
And of course, slavery in Islam continues today, with
Muslims enslaving white Christians up to 1830, Jews a
fair bit longer, and black pagans to the present.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>Why don't we teach more about the French and Indian War? About the
>Revolution itself? About the Quasi-War? About the War of 1812? About
>the British Opium trade and the agonies it caused the Chinese? About
>the Spanish American war? About our adventures among the banana
>Republics?
Where and when did you grow up? Because in Greater Boston in the
1960s we got a LOT about the Revolution.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
James A. Donald
> > > > > > > > Why is almost all slavery on the
> > > > > > > > internet committed by white Christian
> > > > > > > > Americans?
Richard R. Hershberger
> > > > > > > Anglo-centric
James A. Donald:
> > > > Should there not also be a similar emphasis on
> > > > English speakers being enslaved, tortured and
> > > > eaten?
Richard R. Hershberger
> > > There is a bias toward showing English speakers as
> > > the actors, not the acted-upon.
James A. Donald:
> > If there was a bias towards action how come children
> > are no longer taught the story of Daniel Boon, what
> > the line in the Marine Battle Hymn "to the shores of
> > Tripoli" refers to, and the line "Millions for
> > defense and not one cent for tribute"?
Richard R. Hershberger
> What makes you think that they aren't?
Oh come on. None of them fit the Hate-America-First
syllabus.
James A. Donald:
> > If there was a bias towards action, how come they
> > don't show English speakers intervening around the
> > world to end slavery and to protect minorities from
> > rape and massacre?
Richard R. Hershberger
> Are you referring to British anti-slavery policy? It
> wasn't universal and it wasn't particularly effective.
Well it was damn near universal and it was particularly
effective. The British ended slavery at gunpoint in
most of the world, and where they could not halt slavery
at gunpoint, they did halt the export and import of
slaves at gunpoint.
To the extent that slavery has mostly been ended, it is
primarily because the British ended it.
> Why don't they show the Brits turing their backs on
> the Irish and letting 1,000,000 of them starve to
> death?
Possibly because nothing like one million of them
starved to death, but mainly, they *are* taught that the
British allowed a disturbingly large number of Irish to
starve.
> > This shows and overwhelming bias towards teaching
> > hatred of white people, hatred of Christians, and
> > hatred of English speakers.
> Black people are overwhemingly Christian in the United
> States.
And the schools are none to happy about this, and seek
to correct this problem.
> Look, when I grew up the prevaling propaganda (because
> that's what it was) immersed us in the goodness and
> greatness of the United States, the land of the free
> and home of the brave.
But America was the land of the free and the home of the
brave. Until quite recently, Americans really were the
most free people in the world, and as for brave,
Americans earned their freedom with blood, and then
saved Europe from itself twice. That was not
propaganda, but simple fact. That you sneer at "land of
the free and home of the brave", and fail to sneer at
"religion of peace", shows how thoroughly you have been
brainwashed - which brainwashing much inclines me to
doubt your claim that that was what schools taught when
you grew up.
American government schools have not taught that America
was the land of the free and the home of the brave since
around 1952. Were you at school in 1952? What kids
have been taught since the 1950s to 1988 is that the
Soviet economy was more dynamic, efficient, popular, and
successful than that of stodgy old fashioned unfair and
unequal capitalism. "the Soviet economy is proof that,
contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a
socialist command economy can function and even thrive."
People who gave an accurate account of the Soviet
economy, for example
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/Strat.html were
condemned by Academia as crazed right wing reactionary
warmongers
> It wasn't until I was an adult that I ever heard of
> the agonies we caused Indians
And when you were a kid, did anyone teach you what the
Indians did to Daniel Boones' son? You were taught that
we (Daniel Boone) stole the land from a bunch of gentle
innocents.
So you were already being taught hate-America-first
propaganda.
> > If not politically motivated, why then is the
> > reasons and outcome of the Barbary wars not covered?
> Perhaps because the Barbary War was (1) not a terribly
> important event and (2) we weren't successful.
Yet it was a lot more important than those Indian wars
that you get taught a propaganda version of.
James A. Donald
> > If there was a bias towards action how come children are no longer
> > taught the story of Daniel Boon, what the line in the Marine Battle
> > Hymn "to the shores of Tripoli" refers to, and the line "Millions for
> > defense and not one cent for tribute"?
Wexford
> What makes you think that they aren't?
Well for one thing, it is fairly obvious that neither you nor anyone
else in this thread except myself knows the story of Daniel Boone
Martin Edwards
> James A. Donald:
>>> The history is grotesquely one sided. If you say
>>> that it should only cover American history - well
>>> why is no one else covering the shameful parts of
>>> their own history, and why is no one covering the
>>> parts of American history where white Christian
>>> Americans were enslaved by brown skinned peoples?-
>>> Hide quoted text -
>
> Wexford <wry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No. I'm saying that if you study American history, you
>> can't deny the fact that the founding fathers allowed
>> a country to emerge in which about 20% of the
>> population were black slaves. Nazis and Communists
>> were infinetly worse, but their crimes don't exonerate
>> ours.
>
> While bad parts of American history existed, so do good
> parts. Why not cover Daniel Boone, the shores of
> Tripoli, and so on and so forth?
>
> Germany and Japan do not grind the bad parts of their
> history into their kids.
This is no longer true in Germany, though it is to some extent in Japan.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
James A. Donald
> > While bad parts of American history existed, so do
> > good parts. Why not cover Daniel Boone, the shores
> > of Tripoli, and so on and so forth?
> >
> > Germany and Japan do not grind the bad parts of
> > their history into their kids.
Martin Edwards
> This is no longer true in Germany
The average German believes that the US is the most evil
nation in history, and was also the most evil nation in
history during the period 1939-1945.
That there is more controversy in Japan is not because
Japanese history is less truthful, but because it is
more truthful. For what German kids are taught of
Nazism, see "the Tin Drum."
I recently saw a survey asking German kids various
questions about World War I and II. They did not know
that Germans had done anything wrong. Forbidding Nazism
has, in practice, turned into forbidding kids from
knowing what Nazism was. German kids are told that
Nazism was extremely wicked - so wicked that they are
not allowed to know anything about Germany's history in
World War II - and World War I, they are taught, was
everyone else's fault.
Michael Price
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 6:43 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > > A woman cannot appear in court nor administer her own property. Only male
> > > relative can act on her behalf and if that male relative does not wish to be
> > > poisoned at dinner he will do what he is told and suffer legal responsibility
> > > for the actions she demands.
>
> > Why would he expect to be poisoned at dinner? In most of these
> > societies good poisons weren't known. That is to say poisons that
> > would work quickly or be tasteless enough for someone to eat
> > unsuspectingly.
>
> That depends what her cooking is like. When she's not /intentionally/
> poisoning him, I mean.
Not really, cooking that makes your stomach ache badly every time
is generally considered pretty good proof of poisoning. And very few
poisons known at the time were effective enough to be given in one
meal that would actually be eaten. Poisoning is slow, stabbing is
quick.
Men have plenty of opportunity to stab, and in Roman law and some
others there's no real comeback for stabbing your wife. The idea that
females controlled much, let alone most, of politics in the ancient
world
is ludicrous.
Wexford
The writer was attempting to distinguish groups of people by race and
religion. I just pointed out that "Christian" isn't a defining term
for white people, since many blacks are Christians as well. The gripe
to which I responded was a common complaint that education today
emphasizes the dark side of white, European, Christian culture.
Wexford
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:29:39 -0800 (PST),Wexford<wrya...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Why don't we teach more about the French and Indian War? About the
> >Revolution itself? About the Quasi-War? About the War of 1812? About
> >the British Opium trade and the agonies it caused the Chinese? About
> >the Spanish American war? About our adventures among the banana
> >Republics?
>
> Where and when did you grow up? Because in Greater Boston in the
> 1960s we got a LOT about the Revolution.
I grew up in Philadelphia, and while the Revolution was discussed in
history class, it wasn't discussed in depth in any education I
received. It should have been, considering that some of the seminal
battles of the war took place either in or near the City, and the city
itself was occupied for almost a year by British forces. It may have
been the time, but educators were not interested in discussing wars. I
got a lot of instruction in high school and college about politics and
the legal and economic development of the United States, but it wasn't
until much later, when I read a biography of Washington, that I began
to understand the revolution and what it meant in terms of heroism and
sacrifice. I think the neglect was caused more by the fact that so
many of the people in the schools I attended, including the faculty,
were the descendants of immigrants. Their ancestors hadn't
participated in the Revolution, and it meant little to them. I had a
professor in college, a Dr. Lochetto, who said of the Civil War, "The
North won. Let's now get on with real history." His idea of "real
history" was to lecture interminably about the rivalry among European
powers and the unification of Italy.
Wexford
I thought I did. He pioneered the settlement of Kentucky and became
the subject of folk legend. Personally, as far as American heroes are
concerned, I prefer John Marshall (who was also involved in Kentucky
land speculation), or Washington, or Hamilton, or any number of
others.
Wexford
> > The valid critique from the left is that traditional
> > histories systematically suffered from such
> > parochialism.
>
> Rather, the left has created an obsessively parochial
> hate America first history, which focusses on American
> sins, and to a lesser extent on the sins of the English
> speaking peoples.
I think this is a rather hysterical statement. The history texts and
social studies books that my children had were certainly Anglo-centric
and emphasized the good things about "Anglo-America" in law, civil
rights, economic productivity, science, etc. They also told of the
shameful history of slavery, jim crow laws and other unpleasant
aspects of our past, but not to excess and not to the point where they
obscured the good things about us.
>
> This America centric history is taught world wide,
> except, of course, for the middle east where the history
> that is taught is that everything that happens, happens
> because of Jews.
????? That's a strange thing to say. The Spanish study Spanish history
and the French French history. Every nation centers its studies on
itself.
>
> > The histories of non- Europeans were ignored apart
> > from their interactions with Europeans, and then they
> > were only considered from the European perspective.
> > The insistance on broadening the scope of study to
> > non-Europeans is all to the good.
>
> But in politically correct history actual non europeans
> are ignored, except as a morality tale to emphasize the
> sins of Americans.
???? UH... I don't think so.
>
> Thus, for example, the first hit that comes up when
> googling syllabus africa ishttp://crab.rutgers.edu/~ccoe/courses/africa/syllabus.html
> The first part of this lengthy web page is all about
> music and dance - an area where blacks are innately more
> talented than whites.
The course is "Peoples and Cultures of Africa." It's about things like
art and dance, and it's not in any way mandatory. The syllabus doesn't
in any way indicate that it tries to portray backs as innately more
talented than whites.
>
> After scanning through a amazing amount of "cultural"
> material, which is to say music and dance, we finally
> get, far far down the page, to some actual content, we
> get "The myth of ethnicity" (in actual fact it is
> glaringly obvious that the differences between one
> subsaharan African race and another are large and real,
> larger than the differences between whites as a whole
> and subsaharan blacks as a whole)
>
> Now observe what is missing: War, law enforcement,
> politics, and governance, the areas where blacks do not
> do well, the areas whose failure has been a
> spectacularly prominent part of African history. Thus
> the whole point of this course is not to teach about
> Africa, but to teach that Africans are better than
> Americans. If they were actually teaching about Africa,
> we would see words like Zimbabwe, Mugabe, Botswana, and
> Seretse Khama
The course isn't about politics or governance. It's about art and
ethnicity. Continue to peruse college catalogues. You'll find plenty
of courses that address contemporary African problems.
>
> Similarly, the first hit when googling syllabus china ishttp://academic.csuohio.edu/makelaa/history/courses/his374/syl.html
> Which is primarily concerned with teaching
> that the Chinese revolution was a good thing. For
> example, "outline and substantiate reasons for the
> failure of the Guomindang (Kuomintang) to create a
> viable Republic in China after 1911".
That's a good assignment. The Koumintang was corrupt and oppressive.
As a body it failed to cope adequately with either internal or
external aggression.
>
> I am pretty sure that any student that observed that the
> success of Taiwan is proof that the Republic was
> perfectly viable, that it fell on the mainland solely
> because of Soviet sponsored attack, and functioned fine
> in Taiwan for lack of Soviet naval power, would be
> failed, probably required to undergo psychiatric
> treatment, and would be required to issue an apology for
> racism, sexism, rape and slavery.
The leader of the Koumintang, Chaing Kai-Shek, and most of the ranking
officers of the Koumintang, had ties of one sort or another to Moscow.
(In fact, Chang and Halliday claim that certain of Chaing's generals
were actually Communist moles who betrayed him.) Chaing's son, who was
educated in Leningrad, married a Russian girl. In any even, Chaing was
either utterly inept or purposefully negligent as a military leader
because he let Mao escape several times when he could have crushed
him. Yes, Taiwan did prosper and the people who fled China to settle
in Hong Kong or Taiwan built great businesses, but Taiwan was also a
pet of the United States and enjoyed the benefit of servicing our
markets (which it still does).
>
> > The complementary error is to imagine that the errors
> > of the most silly are broadly held. It is easy to
> > cherry pick academic folly, but it's not as if
> > meso-American cannibalism or Barbary pirate slaving
> > raids are a deep secret suppressed by the Academy.
>
> The bizarre excesses are merely the leading edge of an
> Academia whose overall content is deeply demented. The
> China course does not command the students run around
> waving little red books, but "outline and substantiate
> reasons for the failure of the Guomindang (Kuomintang)
> to create a viable Republic in China after 1911" comes
> mighty close.
No, it's a good question. It doesn't bed a particular answer.
ADR
I understand your point but there is little objective reading of
history anywhere. In most countries, history is read in a way that
justifies the common narrative. It is true that George Washington
showed a lot of tenacity and heroism in leading the Continental Army
but his efforts and sacrifice were connected with the need to secure
victory for the side that he had sided with. In no way should any
sacrifice or heroism be taken as a justification for the cause that
this individual served. A great section of the population in the
colonies sided with the British during the Revolution and they also
fought heroically for their cause. Had De Grasse not appeared,
Cornwallis would have won the day and today you would be praising
those who fought for the Crown.
As events recede in the past, fewer and fewer will identify strongly
with those. In the absence of a standard curriculum, it is reasonable
to expect an individual teacher to put forward his/her point of view.
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I understand your point but there is little
> objective reading of history anywhere.
True, but you offer no examples. Instead, you simply
invent a counter-reality.
> It is true that George Washington showed a lot of
> tenacity and heroism in leading the Continental Army
> but his efforts and sacrifice were connected with
> the need to secure victory for the side that he had
> sided with. In no way should any sacrifice or
> heroism be taken as a justification for the cause
> that this individual served.
This is meaningless, on several levels, not the least
of which the fact that it's a strawman.
Please, prove it to yourself. Attempt to cut & paste
the opposing claim you believe you were replying to.
(It doesn't exist).
> A great section of the population in the colonies
> sided with the British during the Revolution and
> they also fought heroically for their cause.
Mere assertion.
At it's face, your claim requires that 100% of those
who supported the crown to have been combatants. We
know this couldn't be true.
> Had De Grasse not appeared, Cornwallis would have
> won the day and today you would be praising
> those who fought for the Crown.
Speculation, at best, and not supported by the facts.
Yorktown wasn't supposed to be the end of the war.
Even a victory at Yorktown wasn't supposed to lead
to an American victory.
The French were actually upset when the Americans
signed a "Separate Peace" with the Brits, instead
of fighting to the end.
HINT: The American revolution was part of a
international conflict, where the Brits and their
allies fought against France & Spain.
> As events recede in the past, fewer and fewer will
> identify strongly with those.
Huh?
> In the absence of a standard curriculum, it is
> reasonable to expect an individual teacher to put
> forward his/her point of view.
There's a difference between having a different point
of view and simply making shit up the way you do.
James A. Donald
> > > > If there was a bias towards action how come
> > > > children are no longer taught the story of
> > > > Daniel Boon, what the line in the Marine Battle
> > > > Hymn "to the shores of Tripoli" refers to, and
> > > > the line "Millions for defense and not one cent
> > > > for tribute"?
Wexford
> > > What makes you think that they aren't?
James A. Donald:
> > Well for one thing, it is fairly obvious that
> > neither you nor anyone else in this thread except
> > myself knows the story of Daniel Boone
Wexford
> I thought I did. He pioneered the settlement of
> Kentucky and became the subject of folk legend.
You learned an Indian free version of the Daniel Boone
story, which is like the version of World War II that
German kids learn, which teaches them about Dresden and
leaves out the Holocaust, teaches them to hate America
first.
You were evidently unaware that Daniel Boone's son was
abducted by Indians and elaborately tortured to death,
the leading torturer being an Indian who had been a
guest in Daniel Boone's house, that his daughters were
briefly enslaved by Indians, and were rescued by him,
and that despite that he continued to seek a peaceful
and humane solution to the Indian problem - which is,
after all, the major reason for his significance in
history and the many stories about him. He is an
important historical figure because personally
exemplified the Indian wars, because his story
represents, exemplifies, and summarizes the conflict
between settlers and Indians.
That you don't know the Daniel Boone story shows that
you were taught a one sided hate-America-first version
of the Indian wars - that you have been brainwashed,
that the history you were taught in school is
hate-America-first brainwashing - much as the version of
World War I and World War II taught to German kids is
also hate-America-first brainwashing, and the version of
World War II taught to Japanese kids is in substantial
part hate-America-first brainwashing.
Wayne Throop
: That you don't know the Daniel Boone story shows that
: of the Indian wars - that you have been brainwashed,
: that the history you were taught in school is
: hate-America-first brainwashing - much as the version of
: World War I and World War II taught to German kids is
: also hate-America-first brainwashing, and the version of
: World War II taught to Japanese kids is in substantial
: part hate-America-first brainwashing.
Ah yes, viewing the world through the patented Donaldsonian
black-and-white-filter lenses. You get a result sort of like
the "line art" option you see on scanners. Only continuously
in real time. You lot are just confused by your lack of these
lenses; you think the world actually has shades of illumination,
and color. Clearly, you should upgrade. Side blinkers optional.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw