(PO) What's on your Mind today? I have been arguing about the Alito thing for two days , exhausted...lol

[Z is for Zangie]

Well, things did not work out too badly for the Ohio Primaries, unfortunately JD Vance won, but it wasn't a blow out, and 70% of Republicans voted for one of the other candidates, two of whom are relatively sane, and Dolan is the Dolan of the (Now Guardians) baseball team in Cleveland. he came in third, Vance only got 31% I think..Dewine is ok with me, also sane, did good on Covid and better than the alternative...Tim Ryan may have a chance...

[Mike]

What I’m wondering is how the Republican SCOTUS will sidestep the contracts clause as it figures out how to abolish gay marriage. Because clearly, based on Alito’s ‘logic’, that is next in the crosshairs.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

What I’m wondering is how the Republican SCOTUS will sidestep the contracts clause as it figures out how to abolish gay marriage. Because clearly, based on Alito’s ‘logic’, that is next in the crosshairs.

Abortion, I think is much easier then this. Marriage is a contract. I would argue employment is as well, but let's set that aside. Reversing the Gay marriage right won't be as easy. That's not to say it can't happen. Again it's something congress can fix once and for all if they did anything.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

@Mike

I've been wanting your opinion on forcing masks on airplanes vs allowing immigration. The Conserviosphear is all up in arms and screaming hypocrisy, but the two situation are entirely different. I get the humanitarian argument for immigration and that is enough to me to lift restrictions at this point, but I'm curious what your take is from a medical research perspective.

[Mike]

@Mike

I've been wanting your opinion on forcing masks on airplanes vs allowing immigration. The Conserviosphear is all up in arms and screaming hypocrisy, but the two situation are entirely different. I get the humanitarian argument for immigration and that is enough to me to lift restrictions at this point, but I'm curious what your take is from a medical research perspective.

Well…. they are two separate things really. Title 42 is not designed as a device to prevent immigration. Now that the overload on the healthcare system has apparently run its course, it is illegitimate to attempt to deploy Title 42 as a backhanded device to control immigration. That is, unless someone can rationally provide data that shows the wannabe immigrants along the Rio Grande are carrying a much more transmissible and/or deadly strain of Covid than what we already have. But that’s not happening.

By contrast, aircraft are intensely condensed groups of people - all breathing the same air. Yes the air gets refreshed quickly - but it generally travels the length of the cabin, then gets recirculated. And only passes thru HEPA filters when recirculating, which can reduce the virus load but by no means can kill the virus. So masks on planes make a world of good sense, and as flying is not a right spelled out in the Constitution is not protected by that document (figured it would be fun to bring Alito’s ‘logic’ into this lol) so the folks trying to argue against mask mandates on aircraft have no leg to stand on.

[Tarmaque]

Marriage is a contract.

This is actually the problem. There are two views on this subject: 1) Marriage is a contract, regulated by the government. 2) Marriage is a religious institution in which the government should have no say. I personally am of the view that marriage in the eyes of the law should be a contract, subject to all the regulation of contract law. If people want to have a "religious" marriage too that's between them and their church, but it is not a legally binding marriage unless there is that document complying with the rules and regulations of government contract law.

However the people screaming about "gay marriage" are all on the religious side of things. They believe (note a belief is not a fact) that marriage can only be legitimate if it is condoned by their particular religion, and if their religion says person A and person B can't marry then the government shouldn't allow it. But that's not how separation of church and state works.

Mostly I wish people would worry about their own morality and not spend so much of their lives worried about the morality of others. Particularly when said morality is fluid, and based on each individual's "beliefs." There are people in this world who see no contradiction in killing adulterers because their book says so, but aborting a fetus that has fewer total cells than they have functioning brain cells is an offense to God, even though their book doesn't say one word about abortion.

But their book also says not to judge other people because that's God's job, and yet they seem to spend an inordinate amount of time judging just about everybody else.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

This is actually the problem. There are two views on this subject: 1) Marriage is a contract, regulated by the government. 2) Marriage is a religious institution in which the government should have no say. I personally am of the view that marriage in the eyes of the law should be a contract, subject to all the regulation of contract law.

Bingo. You can call anything you want a spiritual marriage, you are also free to not accept someone else's personal marriage. But the legal institution is a contract between two consenting adults and to try and regulate it based on gender is just a silly fight. I do think we would do well to call the legal version something different, like "civil unions" and let the religious folks have their word. But as it exists now to not recognize a marriage is a violation of the contract clause and the equal protections clause. I would prefer that congress acted on this too. Stop laughing, I said I'd prefer it not that it would happen.

However the people screaming about "gay marriage" are all on the religious side of things. They believe (note a belief is not a fact) that marriage can only be legitimate if it is condoned by their particular religion, and if their religion says person A and person B can't marry then the government shouldn't allow it. But that's not how separation of church and state works.

I don't think I need to tell you this is a terrible argument. They are free, in their personal lives, to not recognize a particular marriage as legitimate. They don't even have to use the term in reference to the relationship at all. That is what freedom means. They are not free to dictate those terms for others. My issue with the Gay Marriage ruling wasn't that it would allow gay marriage it was that the verbiage had wider implications then I felt it should. Setting up the potential for someone to be arrested for refusing to recognize a marriage. Which has arguably already happened. I don't think anyone should spend time in jail for refusing to recognize any personal choice. Even though I think it's idiotic not to. I just can't support criminalizing stupidity.

Mostly I wish people would worry about their own morality and not spend so much of their lives worried about the morality of others.

They would have to actually read the bible to get to this point. Most don't bother.

There are people in this world who see no contradiction in killing adulterers because their book says so, but aborting a fetus that has fewer total cells than they have functioning brain cells is an offense to God, even though their book doesn't say one word about abortion.

It actually kind of does indirectly. There is a passage that I'm not going to look up that states, "God breathed the breath of life into Adam and thus he became a living being" From a biblical perspective life begins at first breath. In a scientific sense a fetus is a human life. It is a stage of human life in the same way that a caterpillar is the stage in the life of a butterfly. I'm not a fan of word games designed to separate the fetus from it's humanity. I think if someone has to emotionally trick themselves to do something they know they shouldn't be doing it. I'd never codify that in law, hell I don't even think it's possible I'm just rambling about how I see the issue.

[Mike]

their book doesn't say one word about abortion.

While their book does not utilize that particular word, it does indeed address the topic:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Well…. they are two separate things really. Title 42 is not designed as a device to prevent immigration. Now that the overload on the healthcare system has apparently run its course, it is illegitimate to attempt to deploy Title 42 as a backhanded device to control immigration. That is, unless someone can rationally provide data that shows the wannabe immigrants along the Rio Grande are carrying a much more transmissible and/or deadly strain of Covid than what we already have. But that’s not happening.

By contrast, aircraft are intensely condensed groups of people - all breathing the same air. Yes the air gets refreshed quickly - but it generally travels the length of the cabin, then gets recirculated. And only passes thru HEPA filters when recirculating, which can reduce the virus load but by no means can kill the virus. So masks on planes make a world of good sense, and as flying is not a right spelled out in the Constitution is not protected by that document (figured it would be fun to bring Alito’s ‘logic’ into this lol) so the folks trying to argue against mask mandates on aircraft have no leg to stand on.

Thank you for that. You are correct there is no "right to fly" and should have no more protection then any other service under the law

[Tarmaque]

It actually kind of does indirectly. There is a passage that I'm not going to look up that states, "God breathed the breath of life into Adam and thus he became a living being" From a biblical perspective life begins at first breath. In a scientific sense a fetus is a human life. It is a stage of human life in the same way that a caterpillar is the stage in the life of a butterfly.

The primary reason Christians are opposed to abortion is they feel that the more people born the more potential Christians there will be. (Also see: Quiver Full movement.) But even that isn't the whole story. In the Old Testament God tells his people to go forth and multiply. Most churches use this to justify their opposition to abortion, even though this doesn't say one word about abortion. Again, this is mostly about filling the world with potential religious people of your own flavor. But as I pointed out above, the book in question is perfectly fine with killing people. All kinds of people. Basically anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of a very vague book, or anyone who does anything that makes you feel uncomfortable. Also note that the accepted English translation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is a terrible translation. In the original Hebrew it's closer to "Thou shalt not murder." Murder being defined as killing someone within your own religion for reasons not approved of by the rabbis. Anyone outside your religion is fair game, as are women, mouthy children, anyone who works on Saturday, masturbators, people who talk trash, and children who had the bad fortune to be born daughters. Basically, Murder is pretty much reduced to "Don't kill the blameless man across the street and steal his shit."

As for "life beginning at conception" that's not even a concept the original writers of the Bibble could understand, much less put in their book. That's something developed relatively recently as an argument to defend anti-abortionism.

As an interesting aside, the original writers of both the Old Testament and the New Testament both never bothered to mention abortion specifically, even though they would have been well aware of what abortion was. The Romans, the Greeks, and most importantly, the ancient Egyptians were well aware of the practice and had both herbal potions and instruments for performing abortions. Particularly potions. If the Israelites of the day were particularly worried about it you'd think they would have mentioned it.

But all of this is neither here nor there. The whole abortion issue was never a big one up until the 60's and 70's when it was developed as an artificial issue to draw people to conservative parties. Conservative political operatives found it was easier to attract followers by "Liberals are killing babies!" than by their economic policies. This really reached its peak during the "Moral Majority" movement in the 80's, but has remained a powerful recruiting tool. Politicians prior to the 60's were afraid to even mention the practice, pro or con.

Actual science or literal religion never had anything do do with it. (Aside from Catholics wanting to breed more Catholics. This is literal church policy, although it isn't based on scripture.)

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

The primary reason Christians are opposed to abortion is they feel that the more people born the more potential Christians there will be. (Also see: Quiver Full movement.) But even that isn't the whole story. In the Old Testament God tells his people to go forth and multiply. Most churches use this to justify their opposition to abortion, even though this doesn't say one word about abortion. Again, this is mostly about filling the world with potential religious people of your own flavor. But as I pointed out above, the book in question is perfectly fine with killing people. All kinds of people.

Not only is it perfectly fine with killing people it commands it. Context matters, "be fruitful and multiply" was a direction to Adam and Eve. 2 people on earth vs 8 billion. Yeah samsies. It's said a few more times, post flood and when the jews are trying to build a nation in a strange land. All situation in which the population was greatly diminished. It's pretty funny that many of these people are totally willing to ignore things like prohibited foods, Donating from "first fruits" and cleaning rituals based on context. But "be fruitful and multiply" was obviously meant forever for everyone. SMH.

Basically anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of a very vague book, or anyone who does anything that makes you feel uncomfortable.

The book is a lot less vague if you exclude the works of Paul which basically contradict everything else in the bible. I personally reject them as useful spiritual writing. That means I'm throwing out most of the new testimony, but suddenly things get consistent. hmmmmm....

Remember the bible isn't a book, but a collections of books that have been "accepted" as legitimate. While this was happening the committee looked for the most commonly held beliefs but they had other mandates as well. Anything that empowered woman was thrown out, most of what empowered the individual was out, any thing that weekend the institution of a formal church was out. They had an agenda, and when reading the book it is important to keep that in mind. Often when things don't make sense it can be traced back this way or two your next point...

Also note that the accepted English translation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is a terrible translation. In the original Hebrew it's closer to "Thou shalt not murder." Murder being defined as killing someone within your own religion for reasons not approved of by the rabbis.

True but not my favorite example of bad translation. My favorite is "virgin". The word that is interpreted as virgin in the bible actually is closer to miss. It's best translation is, an unwed woman of child bearing years. The translates assumed unread meant virgin and ran with. The entire virgin birth mythos isn't backed up by anything. Not even scripture.

Anyone outside your religion is fair game, as are women, mouthy children, anyone who works on Saturday, masturbators, people who talk trash, and children who had the bad fortune to be born daughters. Basically, Murder is pretty much reduced to "Don't kill the blameless man across the street and steal his shit."

Leviticus is where a lot of this comes from. It also includes "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." (this line is one that gets translated a 1,000 different ways but they are all similar, but there is a very good argument to be made that this is actually about either incest or the abuse of young boys that was common in the middle east at the time.) There is a lot in Leviticus that is about reproduction and there is a lot about not trusting and even killing outsiders. This takes place once the Jews arrive in the promise land they were low in numbers. They had spent time as slaves and then time wondering in the desert they were strangers with reduced numbers, of course populations mattered. There is a reason the 10 commandments are presented separately (and in stone with clear symbolism) while the rest of the convenient is rattled off like a shopping list.

As for "life beginning at conception" that's not even a concept the original writers of the Bibble could understand, much less put in their book. That's something developed relatively recently as an argument to defend anti-abortionism.

That is the argument that many make against abortion. If they didn't understand it, how could they speak out against it? This also kills the "God's word" argument. And the reality the book does pinpoint the spiritual moment of life very clearly.

As an interesting aside, the original writers of both the Old Testament and the New Testament both never bothered to mention abortion specifically, even though they would have been well aware of what abortion was. The Romans, the Greeks, and most importantly, the ancient Egyptians were well aware of the practice and had both herbal potions and instruments for performing abortions. Particularly potions. If the Israelites of the day were particularly worried about it you'd think they would have mentioned it.

It also doesn't mention homosexuality directly outside of Paul...

This really reached its peak during the "Moral Majority" movement in the 80's, but has remained a powerful recruiting tool. Politicians prior to the 60's were afraid to even mention the practice, pro or con.

Yes, the "Religious right" was the beginning of the downfall of the GOP.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

That is interesting, I've never interpreted this as a description of an abortion, but it certainly fits well. I try not to spend to much time breaking down Leviticus never mind this is numbers, but I might have to look into this one more.

Edit: It also looks like a lot of this is only true when using the NIV version. Other version sujest rot, swelling, or dropping of the woman's reproductive system. I'm going to have to find some better academic writing about this one and honestly I might never get to it. It's not one I feel particularly drawn to.

[Mike]

However you slice it, this is a) humans prepare a potion and administer it to the woman, in order that b) the pregnancy is terminated. That they lacked knowledge and therefore sought the intervention of ‘god’, well…. it remains exactly equivalent to a modern induced abortion.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

However you slice it, this is a) humans prepare a potion and administer it to the woman, in order that b) the pregnancy is terminated. That they lacked knowledge and therefore sought the intervention of ‘god’, well…. it remains exactly equivalent to a modern induced abortion.

Like I said the description fits. although the NIV version makes it fit more cleanly the others.

[Tarmaque]

Leviticus is where a lot of this comes from.

Also Deuteronomy. Those ancient goat herders were pretty strange.

[Z is for Zangie]

Great convo guys....thanks
Even learned a few things I didn't know

[Tarmaque]

Even learned a few things I didn't know

I sometimes wish I hadn't been cursed with an analytical mind and access to actual knowledge. I could have been a happy Christian if I could turn off my brain and ignore logical inconsistencies and outright contradictions.

I remember when I was about thirteen or so, and a school friend tried to get me indoctrinated into their rural bible-thumping church by inviting me to "youth group." I lasted about one time. They gave me some bible verse to memorize for the next time, and it made absolutely no sense. It seemed too much like school, so I politely declined the next week. However my brother was the same age as that guy's younger brother, and they snared him. He moved from one heinous evangelical church to another and turned into a real asshole (as I'm sure I have shared at length.)

Oddly enough, my parents made friends with their parents, and stayed in contact for many years after we moved away. Aside from their religious fetish they were pretty nice people.

A few years after we moved away, they informed us (through a family newsletter they sent out every few months. It was the early 80's) that they were going to become "Bible translators" and were taking correspondence courses to that end. I'm still not completely clear what the difference between "Bible translators" and "Missionaries" is. They ended up on a Navajo reservation running a general store and mechanic's shop funded by church donations. They were there for nearly a decade. My Dad visited them a couple times, down somewhere in northern Arizona. I'm not sure how much "Bible translating" got done, but it made them happy. The natives in the area of course all spoke perfect English and weren't particularly interested in the Bible, but I suspect they appreciated a subsidized general store and Dave was a handy mechanic.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Great convo guys....thanks
Even learned a few things I didn't know

I love talking about religion, politics and sex, I should change my name to Taboo.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Aside from their religious fetish they were pretty nice people.

I've spent a lot of time researching religion. One of the strongest conclusion that I have come too is that for some people it is a very good thing these structures exist. they need them in their lives. Sometimes those who need it the most mistakenly assume other people need it as well.

I'm going to avoid my more controversial conclusions about morality and religion for today.

[Z is for Zangie]

Great convo guys....thanks
Even learned a few things I didn't know

I love talking about religion, politics and sex, I should change my name to Taboo.

Me too...lol