Portion 17; in which true Christians stay kosher

[In response to my list of Biblical Law passages that most modern Christians like to ignore, most will say that the 1st coming of  Christ nullified all of the Old Law.  If that were true, it would mean the 10 Commandments no longer applied either.

In fact, more than 10 commandments were handed down at the same time.  Its just that the people present fled in terror after hearing the first 10.  A good number of what I posted last time, as well as lots more that have been forgotten, are all from the same incident where the more famous Ten were delivered: Exodus 20  Exodus 21 Exodus 22.  All in all, about 100 Commandments.  And no word about the first 10 being the only important ones, or being in a special category apart from the rest.  Either you discard them all, or you keep them all.  And according to the New Testemant, and Jesus Himself, you keep them all.]

• Sep 4, 2006 

Portion 17; in which true Christians stay kosher

They will find ambiguous passages to try to justify ignoring the parts they don't feel like doing, but the New Testament is actually fairly clear that Jesus' teachings were meant to augment the Old Testament, NOT replace it. 
This implies that to be a true Christian, you must still be koser, observe the sabbath, not collect interest on loans, and all the other great (and not so great) stuff that the Old Testament tells them to do. (see earlier blog post)
The 10 Commandments were all in the Old Testament too.  If Jesus' arrival meant the end of staying kosher, shouldn't this also mean that thou may kill and covet as well, so long as you maintain faith in Him?



The New Testament, on the Old Law:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:17

"Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convicned that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law embodiment of knowledge and truth – you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?"
Romans 2:17

"Do we, then nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."
Romans 3:31

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!"
Galatians 1:6

"Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."
Galatians 3:10

"Brothers let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human convenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case."
Galatians 3:15

"The law introduced 430 years later does not set aside the convenant previously established by God."
Galatians 3:17

Section 16; in which men and women are equal in NY

• Sep 3, 2006

Section 16; in which men and women are equal in NY

At least in terms of mandatory clothing.
To think I lived there for a year and didn't know about this.

I suppose it makes it somewhat less surprising that I saw a number of women wearing transparent blouses with no bras walking around nonchalantly in public.

The entire state has no laws against women going topless in any place men can, since the law was challenged successfully in 1992.
The same goes, apparently, for Maine, D.C., and Ontario Canada.

http://www.tera.ca/

Obviously few people are choosing to take full advantage of it, as social norms are just as strong a force in dictating behavior as law is.
But really, it is a matter of equality.

It may be a really hot day.
Or you may not like the look of tan lines.

Breasts may be enjoyed in a sexual manner, but then again, plenty of heterosexual women clearly look at bare-chested men in a sexual manner as well.  (Does anyone seriously think that the shirtless posters of rap stars are marketed for their male fans?)
And one of the more common (albeit very strange) fetishes is for the foot.
By the logic of breasts should be covered in public because they can potentially be enjoyed sexually, we should go back to the dress of the Victorian period, or to that of an Islamic fundamentalist.
But just as the ankle was an arbitrary point to define indecency, the areola is an arbitrary point to define it today.

Besides, the nipple isn't even necessarily the best part.  The nipple is utilitarian, it feeds babies.  The whole entire breast itself is all full of squishy soft goodness.

It should be obvious from both history and other cultures that it is the very fact that a part is covered which makes it alluring and have a sexual connotation. 
It is a sad reflection on how much power religion still has over modern society that clothing equality (including lack of clothing) is not yet universal.
http://www.tera.ca/

Passage 15 ; in which half of American drivers don't signal

• Sep 1, 2006

Passage 15 ; in which half of American drivers don't signal

I had thought, just from driving around, that it was almost half.  Turns out it is actually more than.  Around 57%
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2006/03/15/66496.htm
That means the chances are good that you, reading this, don't signal.

I honestly can not understand it.

The reasons I've heard make literally make no sense.  It takes virtually NO EFFORT.  Less than changing the channel with a remote (your hand doesn't move as far, and there are only two choices instead of about 20) and far less than the rest of driving.  It doesn't force you to drive any slower, or to take any additional driving time.



Your hand is already right there on the wheel.  It takes about a second of time, and moving one's hand about 3 inches.

If its just a lane change, not a turn, holding it down (or up) halfway prevents it locking in place so you don't have to remember to shut it off.  All cars have that feature, for at least several decades (The "Happy" Van, my first car which was built in 1968 had it)

Not only is it a simple courtesy to other drivers, it can also prevent accidents.
Having driven both large commercial trucks, and tiny motorcycles, and having been both the victim and cause of accidents, I am quite aware that, no matter how much you are paying attention, there will be times when you miss someone.
If you signal, it gives them a few seconds more time to either get out of your way, or honk to alert you of their presence.
I mentioned this to a friend of mine recently who pointed out that some drivers will speed up when they see your signal, to prevent you from getting ahead of them.
True enough, but personally I find not injuring or killing someone to be more important than getting one single car length ahead.  That extra car length is likely, at most, to equal a tenth of a second difference in how quickly you get to your destination.

Plus, of course, it is just respectful to those around you, who could plan their own route more efficiently if they knew what you were planning to do.  For example, if you are on a four lane street, and the person in front of you turns on the left signal, it gives you time to change lanes so that you do not have to stop and wait behind them as they wait for an opening.

Wouldn't you appreciate that?  So why wouldn't you extend the same courtesy to others?

I suspect the general obnoxiousness of society is tied more than casually with the significant expansion of commercialism in recent years.  (For example, naming public stadiums after a company is an entirely new phenomenon.  We are moving more than ever towards the idea that profit is the only sane reason to do anything - but perhaps I will get into all that later)

I saw recently a motorcyclist who changed lanes every few seconds, cutting directly in front of other vehicles, of course never signaling.  If the traffic suddenly slowed, as happens without warning fairly often, he would have had no way to avoid being rear-ended.  I sort of hoped I could see this happen.  Unfortunately not this time.  At least in this case he was primarily just endangering himself.
I've also been seeing state highway patrol cars not bothering to signal.  Since their primary job is enforcing traffic laws, it implies that as a society we have decided that enough people ignore the law it is in fact ok to just ignore it...  Sort of like with all traffic laws in NYC...

heading 14; in which reparations are still due

• Aug 12, 2006

heading 14; in which reparations are still due

Imagine this:

Take two people: same age, same race, same education, same skills and intelligence, etc.  You give one $10,000 and set him out into the world.  You give the other nothing, and set him out in the world.  Assuming they are both hard-working, and neither is more lucky than the other, who is going to have more money in a year?  Who will have more in 50 years?  Who will have more to pass down to their children?

In no other time or place besides the United States were slaves considered live stock.  Slaves were historically usually prisoners of war.  In the US they were considered farm animals.

 Everyone should have learned this in high school history class:

The first permanent English colony, Jamestown: 1607
First African slaves brought to English colonies: 1619
Revolutionary war ends: 1783
Civil War ends: 1865
Desegregation of schools: 1955
Jim Crow / Civil Rights movement: 1950s-1960s

 From the time of the first colony, European Americans were able to earn and save money, and accumulate wealth which they could pass down via inheritance.  Certainly since the revolution ended European American's property was theirs, and their success was largely dependent on how smart they were and how hard they worked. 

The slaves which the vast majority of today's African Americans descended from were not allowed to keep property, and in fact were not even paid for their labor.  While they were legally "freed" after the civil war, segregation was legal, they could not vote, and few whites, (who already owned all the land and companies) would hire them.  Segregation was formally outlawed in 1955, and the civil rights movement of the 1960s was the first time they were fully allowed to have the same opportunities that whites had.

 So consider the dates above in another way:

 (assuming the average person starts a family at 20, which is young by today's standards, but not so strange for people in the 1800s)

time from Jamestown to present: 398 years (20 generations)
time from revolution to today: 222 years (11 gen)
time from end of civil war to today: 140 years (7 Gen)
time from civil rights movement to today: 40 years (2 Gen)

In other words, the difference in time for European Americans to accumulate wealth vs. African Americans is 358 years (18 generations)

When they were set free, they were supposed to each get 40 acres and a mule - this was specifically to make up for what I just pointed out. 
But for some reason that never happened...

For 246 years the United States got free labor from African Americans. 

This is more time than from the civil war to today.

The country never re-paid that debt. 
Thousands of employees, working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 258 years. 

Today we have to pay it in other ways.  We have several choices as to how to repay it. 

We can pay for cops and prisons, because poor people are more likely to commit crime.  
We can pay for welfare.  
Or - we can pay for higher education, so that the poor have a chance to get the good jobs that will mean they don't need welfare or crime to get by.  
In fact, we do a little of each - but with a trend toward more of the former as a result of less of the latter.

There is, in fact, a very easy way to level the playing field for everyone, but no one will like it, even though it is entirely fair.

100% tax on UN-EARNED income.  If you did not EARN your money, you don't DESERVE it!
 Especially inheritance.  When your parents die and leave you money, you didn't do anything to earn that money, and yet we feel we are somehow entitled to it.  
Use that money, first of all, to make preschool and kindergarten universal.  Going to those early education or not has consistently been found to have a greater impact on future success than what particular district, schools or teachers, a child has.  Then use some to make the first two years of college free for everyone.  Re-distribute any left over wealth among every one.


If we tax all inheritance, re-distribute it equally, and equalize educational opportunity, then no one has any excuse for how they end up.  Success will be truly merit based.  
Then, it would be valid, if blacks are still poor, to say they are just lazy, or dumb, or whatever.  

Unfortunately, people think that taxing unearned income is immoral, so it'll never happen.  (of course, they do it in communist countries, but then, that has it's whole host of other problems). 
Earning money via interest from loans or the stock market is also not merit based, not based on how hard you work, but based solely on how much you already have (no matter how you got the capital in the first place). 

Jews, Christians, and Muslims should all know that the Bible forbids charging interest (as well as holding any debt more than 7 years, or holding back wages overnight) - although for some reason only the Muslims bother to follow that law...

division thirteen; in which statutory age limits are arbitrary

Aug 11, 2006

division thirteen; in which statutory age limits are arbitrary

Arbitrary is arbitrary.

We need one law on sex. Rape. Rape should be illegal, no matter what the age, what the circumstances.

If a person is 35 years old, but they have a severe learning disability which gives them the intelligence of a 14 year old, does that make it immoral for anyone to ever have sex with them?

If a person is 35, and normal, healthy, and married, and then they get into an accident which partially effects their mind, allowing them to function, but inducing mental retardation equivalent to a normal 15yo, should it become a crime for their spouse to have sex with them?

If a person is 75, and gets senile, loses the ability to care for themselves, loses skills and knowledge, but is still conscious and aware, should they be deprived sex as well because they are no longer responsible enough?
(hey, there are some elderly who are still capable)



If a person has been alive for only 16 years, but are extra intelligent, and have had a lot of life experience, they are already an upper division college student, and have been legally emancipated, is it immoral for them to have sex?

If the intelligent 16 yo had sex with the retarded 35 yo, which one is the victim?

The law says the "child" is the victim, which is defined, not by mental capacity, experience, or responsibility, but by number of years since birth.

Now, which ever gender you assumed each had, switch them, now who’s the victim?

Two 10 year olds in a play shed, experimenting, which one is the victim?

15yo female babysitter "playing" with the 9yo male she is watching, which one is the victim?

15yo male babysitter with 9yo girl - why do you automatically assume this one is worse than the other? Are girls stupider? Are they less interested in sex for their own sake? Are they less capable of knowing what they want or of saying no?

Two 17yo have sex, which one is the victim?
What if they are both the same gender?
18yo girl w/ 17yo boy.
Is she taking advantage of him?

20 year old girl with 16yo boy
20yo girl w 18yo boy
Is he taking advantage of her, or her of him?

20 year old boy with 16 year old girl - now I switch it, and now it's a problem - why? What's the difference?

20yo boy w/ 18yo girl
now its OK again?

22yo boy with 18yo girl
Same age difference, why is this ok?

28 boy w/ 18yo girl
35yo boy with 18yo girl
45yo boy w/ 18yo girl
Maybe we should make the age of consent 35, just like the age for presidency.
If you're responsible enough to be president, maybe you can handle sex.

Maybe it should be a question of age spread. Any two people no more than 3 years apart, and its legal.
35 and 38, no problem.
35 and 39, clearly the 35yo is being taken advantage of.
13 and 17 is wrong, but 13 and 16 should be ok.

Or, maybe we should just assume that ANY time two people have sex, the woman is being taken advantage of.

After all, if we admit that some females actually like or want sex, we'd have to admit that young females may like and want sex also, and if they want it, it becomes kind of hard to call them a victim.

Here’s the easy solution.
We only need one law in regards to inappropriate sex, and its already on the books.
Its called rape.
Rape means one person was forced, (whether by violence or not), against their will.
Statutory "rape" means there is no victim.
If the "victim" didn't want to do it, it would have been real rape, which is already illegal. 

Item 12; in which abortion is NOT an matter of the right to life, & NOT a women's rights issue.

• Aug 10, 2006

Item 12; in which abortion is NOT an matter of the right to life, & NOT a women's rights issue.

 [I originally wrote this in '06, but added a bit 24Mar2012.  I tend to be on the liberal / progressive side of most things - but as I say in my blog's header, I am not beholden to a "side".  This is one of those times.]

[Looking at it objectively, I have to say that the conservative right is wrong on this issue - but they are wrong for the right reason.  The left is right, but just by lucky coincidence.  They are right for the wrong reason. 
Now, you might think that as long as they get it right, that's all that matters - but you would be wrong.
Because the country is divided pretty evenly right and left in this country, and its a very important issue.  The arguments pro-choice people make have no affect on public opinion, because they are ignoring the actual issue.  If we give up on convincing people it has anything to do with women's rights or reproductive freedom, and instead focus on addressing the "life" part of pro-life, we have a much better chance of actually swaying the opinion of the people on the other side.]

Not human?

Human??

Why the hell is it so hard for both sides (of the abortion issue) to see that it is NOT a question of morality, and it is NOT a question of women's rights?
It comes down one philosophical / scientific question:

At what point can you consider something human?

That is the issue. And there is no "right" answer. If a single cell which COULD become a person is human, then every month every non-pregnant woman is letting a potential person die, and every woman with a miscarriage is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. 

The second before conception there is one microscopic cell with some DNA in it.  

The second after there is... one microscopic cell with slightly more DNA in it.  

It has no brain, no feelings, no desires, it could not grow outside of it's mother, it is not an independent entity.  It is no more a "human" than a severed arm is.  It is a POTENTIAL human.

[This seems so obvious to the pro-choice side that they assume that everyone who disagrees with them on abortion must be deliberately lying when they say they believe a zygot is a human. 

But step outside yourself and your assumptions for a minute.  

Try to imagine that you were raised your whole life to believe that God - a giant white guy in a robe who lives in the sky and created the Earth and takes care of us - is personally responsible for creating consciousness, and that by virtue of being made in His image, we are spiritually divine in a way no other animal is.  When we "die", we live on as our soul ascends to heaven (if we are lucky). 

Is believing this stuff really stupid?  Sure it is.  But that fact is that for the majority of human history, the majority of cultures have believed something equivalent, and most of American's believe something along those lines even today.  These people have been told this mythology in total seriousness for their entire lives.  Human children have brains primed for learning, and when you are first learning how the world works, what your parents tell you is truth.  Then you go on to find that everyone around you believes the same things.  Eventually it something you "know", unquestionably, deep inside.
Under that framework, the center of what makes you you is not actually your brain - your brain just handles the mundane day-to-day tasks of running you body and housing your thoughts - it is your soul.  Your soul is something ephemeral and intangible, and it gives you your consciousness and feeling and humanity.  And the soul is not something that develops gradually in a process of biological development.  Our biology is just a shell.  The important part is the soul, and that part is injected directly by God.]

On the other hand, if it were really an issue of women's rights, and not the "unborn child's" then why shouldn't she have the right to kill it two hours before it's born, or right after it's born, or a year later?

[No one argues that a woman in labor should be able to have an abortion.  Right after birth, the baby is still connected to the woman by the umbilical cord.  Its part of her body, so why shouldn't she still have the right to destroy it?  The argument then is that at that point the baby could survive outside of her, making it a viable human.  With that reasoning it should be legal to "abort" a premature baby, because they actually can not survive outside its mother on their own - they survive only because we have created technology to simulate the womb artificially. Destroying a premature baby after birth but before severing the umbilical cord would be considered abortion, not murder, because it couldn't survive on its own and it is still connected to its mother's body.

That sounds ridiculous, extreme, and irrelevant, right?

If we return to the framework of the true believer, an embryo has a soul.  The physical body doesn't really matter very much.  There is no concrete division between embryo and fetus, between pre-brain development and post-brain development.
When you tell someone who believes this that abortion should be a right of a woman, because it is her body, that sounds as absurd and obviously immoral as the scenario I just described above.

But then there are all the people in the middle.  Not necessarily fundamentalists, but not experts in biology either.   They may not have a die-hard conviction that God injects the soul at the moment of conception, but the argument they hear from the fundamentalists FEELS right.
This feeling is shared by liberals; see: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/09/unborn-humans-and-social-conservatives.html

If you feel the need to have concrete answers to everything, there are only two points you can pick where something dramatic happens: at conception, and at birth.

If, in fact, we could say for certain that an embryo was human, there would be no debate.  Everyone would agree that abortion was wrong.  On the other hand, if we could say for certain an embryo was not human, then it would be obvious that abortion is ok.
Notice that, in either scenario, the thoughts, feelings, needs, and preferences of the mother do not come into play.  If an embryo isn't human, then abortion is ok regardless of whether women should have rights.]

The fact is, there is no one place you can draw a concrete line. This is the issue. 

[In reality we know that consciousness actually is a function of the brain. And the brain develops gradually over time.  Which means that from a scientific stand point, there is no one moment that an embryo becomes human.

That's what makes it so complicated.  Both sides want to stand firm behind an absolute truth, because it is easier to over-simplify life and to be angry and determined than it is to look closely at a subtle and complex issue with no clear right-or-wrong answers.

And because each side picks an extreme, they argue from their own stand point completely ignoring what the other side is even saying.

The pro-life crowd at least gets what the issue is.  That's why I say they are wrong, but for the right reason.  They have the correct question.  They are just wrong about the answer.  The pro-choice side is focused on an argument that isn't even relevant to the debate.

And since the country is pretty evenly divided, and this is a democracy, that is a very bad thing for the pro-choice movement.  The right is buying ads and passing laws that bring emotional attention to the fact that an embryo could someday become human.  This message is not being countered. 

There are billboards up stating things like: "brain formation has begun by week 5", with a picture of a cute infant beside it, but there is no message pointing out that it is barely more than a bastula at that point: only 5-10mm big, with no face, no bones, no intestines, no separate fingers, and no ability to think or feel or even react. 

By week 7, it's as much dinosaur as human.  It literally has a tail.  It could make the basis of a terrible alien creature in a movie, and if you saw one coming at you you would probably look for something to smash it with.

Not until week 15 does it begin to move, and not until week 22 does it have a fully distinct heart beat.  The brain still has substantial developing to do as late as week 30.

The image the lay person has, thanks to the pro-life movement, of as embryo is a fully formed, fully conscious, human.  This is simply not the reality.

That image might be appropriate for thinking about a 34 week old fetus, and that would be just fine.  

It would place the debate squarely around third-trimester abortion, and more subtle and complex questions around the health of the mother versus the rights of the fetus, and that would be just fine.

If the debate were centered around exactly what point during the 3rd trimester it actually becomes human, there would be no threat of conservatives trying to push the law towards restricting or banning all abortions instead of just late-term abortion.  It is reasonable that there should be some debate about 3rd trimester abortion, because it really isn't clear, scientifically and philosophically, whether the fetus is a legitimate human or not. 
Because there is no voice countering the message that an embryo is human, people who don't know any better are going to be swayed by that argument. 

Meanwhile, the left makes ridiculous arguments like that it is hypocritical to support the death penalty while supporting abortion (as though there couldn't possibly be a reasonable distinction between protecting innocent life and protecting all life) in order justify the forgone conclusion they have made that the opposition is actually evil and are just trying to oppress and control women.
 
It is easier to vilify the other side, to make them into an "other", than it is to try to understand them.  

But the outcome of taking the easy route is predictable - you lose.  And that is what we are seeing in states across the country.
We have no one to blame but ourselves.  Its time the pro-choice movement becomes right for the right reason.]

Article 11; in which inheritance should be eliminated in the name of Democracy

• Aug 9, 2006

Article 11; in which inheritance should be eliminated in the name of Democracy

I propose a 100% inheritance tax, no exceptions.

This money will be used initially to pay down our mind-boggling debt.

After that it will be distributed equally to all American citizens.

Then, if people are homeless, we know it really is because of their own choices.

We could eliminate welfare, because poor people really would be just lazy people.

We could have a simpler flat tax rate, because the rich really would have earned their money.

We would have equality and justice.

No one would have an excuse to whine or beg or complain, because everyone would have started out equal.

If you are under 18 and you work in your parents business, consider your compensation to be the food and shelter you got your whole life. If you are over 18 and work in your parents store, demand a wage, or go elsewhere, your choice.

No one deserves something which they didn't earn.

Inheritance is no different than the class system in India.

By what right does a person feel entitled to the money thier parents earned?

Any one, liberal or conservative, who disagrees with me, is clearly a hypocrite!

Tell me why I'm wrong?

Who's with me?