Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[William T Goodall]

On 5 Apr 2005, at 8:34 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ironically, viewing the Bible metaphorically strengthens, rather than
weakens it, freeing it from the crazy idea that it must be considered
factual in every respect. Untold millions of intelligent, sensitive
people have been turned off by this unsupportable idea. The Bible is
completely pre-scientific, assumes a world view in which slavery is a
routine and acceptable form of labor, and plainly contradicts itself
time and again. Viewing it as fact is killing it.
But the fundamentalists are the fastest growing Christian sects.
On the other hand, viewing it as the best that a series of particular,
peculiar, pre-scientific, slave-holding people had to offer in the
circumstances of their time makes it a remarkable artifact. Seeing it
for what it is will preserve it.
Preserve it as a quaint irrelevant historical artifact. Which is fine :)
Personally, I have decided to take the Bible seriously by refusing to
take it literally and by promoting a vision of Christianity that does
the same.
But the fundamentalists are the fastest growing Christian sects.
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' 
There is no evidence that people want to use these things."
-John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:48:50 +0100, William T Goodall wrote

> But the fundamentalists are the fastest growing Christian sects.

I see this as part of a trend that goes far beyond Christianity and far beyond 
religion.  Fundamentalism of all sorts is on the rise, which I think is a 
typical outcome of social and economic injustice.  And the Bible has a great 
deal to say about that.

Jim Wallis makes a nice observation that the answer to bad theology isn't 
secularism, it's good theology.  I'd imagine you think there's no such thing..
.?

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dave Land]

On Apr 5, 2005, at 2:48 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
But the fundamentalists are the fastest growing Christian sects.
All the more reason for those of us who are not fundamentalists to act
now.
Preserve it as a quaint irrelevant historical artifact. Which is fine 
:)
You are certainly in line with Dr. Borg and other scholars in viewing it
in a historical light. As to its relevance, while I naturally uphold
your freedom to accept or reject it as a source of inspiration or
guidance, it would be hard to make a compelling case that it is 
irrelevant.

But the fundamentalists are the fastest growing Christian sects.
True enough for the time being, but one of the metaphors that run
through that historical artifact is that of the faithful (loyal) remnant
who continue to believe (trust) in God in the face of sometimes
overwhelming opposition. I and others will continue promote an alternate
vision of Christianity in that spirit.
John Shelby Spong compares fundamentalism to the act of putting make-up
on a corpse: it briefly gives it the appearance of life, but doesn't
bring it to life. I fail to see how calcifying something can possibly
animate it.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Julia Thompson]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Nick Arnett wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:48:50 +0100, William T Goodall wrote
> 
> > But the fundamentalists are the fastest growing Christian sects.
> 
> I see this as part of a trend that goes far beyond Christianity and far
> beyond religion.  Fundamentalism of all sorts is on the rise, which I
> think is a typical outcome of social and economic injustice.  And the
> Bible has a great deal to say about that.
> 
> Jim Wallis makes a nice observation that the answer to bad theology
> isn't secularism, it's good theology.  I'd imagine you think there's no
> such thing.. .?

I've been hearing a lot about Jim Wallis lately.  Aside from trying to get 
back issues of Sojourners (which I am not going to attempt this year), 
what would you suggest of his?

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:18:06 -0500 (CDT), Julia Thompson wrote

> I've been hearing a lot about Jim Wallis lately.  Aside from trying 
> to get back issues of Sojourners (which I am not going to attempt 
> this year), what would you suggest of his?

His book, "God's Politics."  It's a best-seller.  I found piles of it featured
right at the entrance to our local book emporium when I went looking for it. 
It's great stuff.  I've been reading that and George Lakoff's "Don't Think of
an Elephant" lately.  They go well together.  The two of them met for the
first time a few weeks ago... I've have loved to be a fly on the wall.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been hearing a lot about Jim Wallis lately. 
> Aside from trying to get 
> back issues of Sojourners (which I am not going to
> attempt this year), 
> what would you suggest of his?
> 
>   Julia

I've seen him on TV and found him to be a stunningly
unimpresive figure...The Weekly Standard just ran an
article on him:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/441oqlsg.asp

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:45:12 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> I've seen him on TV and found him to be a stunningly
> unimpresive figure...

I've been following his writings for 20 years, finally heard him speak in 
person a few weeks ago, and talked to him for a short time about how on earth 
one can participate in today's media without having one's words misused to 
cause more harm than good.  It doesn't bother me a bit if he doesn't come 
across well in the media.  That's probably a bonus in today's media 
environment.

The Weekly Standard just ran an
> article on him:
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/441oqlsg.
asp

This article misses the big points that Wallis is making -- the GOP doesn't 
own religion, and that those who want other choices must offer a real vision.  
As I said in public recently, it's not just about what we won't do, it's about 
what we will do.  

Indeed, Wallis, like Lakoff, is teaching liberals, encouraging them to talk 
about their values and the religion's role in public life, badly needed 
lessons in a time when the "opposition party" can't seem to do anything but 
criticize and complain.  I am *certain* there are millions of American 
Christians who don't agree with conservative views, but haven't a clue how to 
talk about their faith in public.  Wallis and George Lakoff are offering 
answers, answers that I have found extraordinarily valuable as I struggle with 
how to talk effectively as I venture back out into the public sphere.

As I see it, they're contributing to a more intelligent national conversation 
than we have today, which we desperately need (hard to imagine it being any 
less intelligent or more cynical).  Following their counsel means letting go 
of the big-media game of "who's winning the argument" and returning to the 
higher purpose of public discussion -- making the best decisions for all, 
based on our values, not our power.

They've taught me a great deal that helps me resist my natural tendency to 
criticize.  I suspect that you are as aware as anyone of that trait in me, so 
what do you think?  Is this a good thing at the microscopic level of our 
discussions here, if I am thus better able to refrain from criticizing, 
instead speaking to the values I hold?

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Julia Thompson]

Nick Arnett wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:45:12 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

I've seen him on TV and found him to be a stunningly
unimpresive figure...

I've been following his writings for 20 years, finally heard him speak in 
person a few weeks ago, and talked to him for a short time about how on earth 
one can participate in today's media without having one's words misused to 
cause more harm than good.  It doesn't bother me a bit if he doesn't come 
across well in the media.  That's probably a bonus in today's media 
environment.

The Weekly Standard just ran an
article on him:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/441oqlsg.
asp
This article misses the big points that Wallis is making -- the GOP doesn't 
own religion, and that those who want other choices must offer a real vision.  
As I said in public recently, it's not just about what we won't do, it's about 
what we will do.  
OK, do we have anyone here who's personally met him, or do I have to bug 
my sister for that?

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dave Land]

On Apr 5, 2005, at 7:14 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Nick Arnett wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:45:12 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
I've seen him on TV and found him to be a stunningly
unimpresive figure...
I've been following his writings for 20 years, finally heard him  
speak in person a few weeks ago, and talked to him for a short time  
about how on earth one can participate in today's media without  
having one's words misused to cause more harm than good.  It doesn't  
bother me a bit if he doesn't come across well in the media.  That's  
probably a bonus in today's media environment.
The Weekly Standard just ran an
article on him:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/ 
441oqlsg.
asp
This article misses the big points that Wallis is making -- the GOP  
doesn't own religion, and that those who want other choices must  
offer a real vision.  As I said in public recently, it's not just  
about what we won't do, it's about what we will do.
OK, do we have anyone here who's personally met him, or do I have to  
bug my sister for that?
Nick's quote above says that he "talked to him for a short time about  
how on earth one can participate in today's media without having one's  
words misused to cause more harm than good."

So the answer to your question would be Nick, I think.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Julia Thompson]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Dave Land wrote:

> On Apr 5, 2005, at 7:14 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
> 
> > Nick Arnett wrote:
> >> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:45:12 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
> >>> I've seen him on TV and found him to be a stunningly
> >>> unimpresive figure...
> >> I've been following his writings for 20 years, finally heard him  
> >> speak in person a few weeks ago, and talked to him for a short time  
> >> about how on earth one can participate in today's media without  
> >> having one's words misused to cause more harm than good.  It doesn't  
> >> bother me a bit if he doesn't come across well in the media.  That's  
> >> probably a bonus in today's media environment.
> >> The Weekly Standard just ran an
> >>> article on him:
> >>> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/ 
> >>> 441oqlsg.
> >> asp
> >> This article misses the big points that Wallis is making -- the GOP  
> >> doesn't own religion, and that those who want other choices must  
> >> offer a real vision.  As I said in public recently, it's not just  
> >> about what we won't do, it's about what we will do.
> >
> > OK, do we have anyone here who's personally met him, or do I have to  
> > bug my sister for that?
> 
> Nick's quote above says that he "talked to him for a short time about  
> how on earth one can participate in today's media without having one's  
> words misused to cause more harm than good."
> 
> So the answer to your question would be Nick, I think.

D'oh!

Thanks, Dave!

(My sister has spent a lot more time with him than that, but her 
perspective may not be what I'm after.)

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:14:32 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote

> OK, do we have anyone here who's personally met him, or do I have to 
> bug my sister for that?

I have.  But it was a short conversation.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[dland]

> --- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've been hearing a lot about Jim Wallis lately.
>> Aside from trying to get back issues of Sojourners
>> (which I am not going to attempt this year), what
>> would you suggest of his?
>
> I've seen him on TV and found him to be a stunningly
> unimpresive figure...

Here's a listmate, making a perfectly reasonable request for
suggestions, and she gets an insult instead.

Dave

Sponge Soaked in Vinegar Maru

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Julia Thompson]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been hearing a lot about Jim Wallis lately.
Aside from trying to get back issues of Sojourners
(which I am not going to attempt this year), what
would you suggest of his?
I've seen him on TV and found him to be a stunningly
unimpresive figure...

Here's a listmate, making a perfectly reasonable request for
suggestions, and she gets an insult instead.
Well, it wasn't *me* that was insulted.  The post was unhelpful for my 
purposes, but that's about the worst I took from it.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's a listmate, making a perfectly reasonable
> request for
> suggestions, and she gets an insult instead.
> 
> Dave

No, it was an assessment of _someone else_.  I wasn't
insulting her.  I do think his version of "God's
Politics" might as well be titled "My Politics", which
is egregious.  The fact that he's justifying bad ideas
using the Bible doesn't make them less bad - although
it does say something is very wrong with the
Democratic Party that they're swallowing this guy's
stuff whole.  It's also not an insult when I ask you
why you saw fit to both misinterpret what I was saying
and intrude for no good reason, either.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Yahoo! Messenger 
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. 
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dave Land]

On Apr 6, 2005, at 8:24 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's a listmate, making a perfectly reasonable
request for
suggestions, and she gets an insult instead.
Dave
No, it was an assessment of _someone else_.  I wasn't
insulting her.  I do think his version of "God's
Politics" might as well be titled "My Politics", which
is egregious.  The fact that he's justifying bad ideas
using the Bible doesn't make them less bad - although
it does say something is very wrong with the
Democratic Party that they're swallowing this guy's
stuff whole.  It's also not an insult when I ask you
why you saw fit to both misinterpret what I was saying
and intrude for no good reason, either.
Hi, Gautam. I was going to reply to Julie's message, pointing out that I
hadn't said that you insulted her, but her reply already covered that.
Apparently not to your satisfaction.
Recounting the facts: She requested recommendations for writings by Jim
Wallis. You delivered an insult instead -- an insult of Jim Wallis.
I did not misinterpret what you said, though I suppose if I'd been less
terse, it might have been clearer.
As to my message amounting to an "intrusion for no good reason," how do
you figure? Was yours less so? Should we just sit quietly by when you
demean the subjects of our conversations?
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They've taught me a great deal that helps me resist
> my natural tendency to 
> criticize.  I suspect that you are as aware as
> anyone of that trait in me, so 
> what do you think?  Is this a good thing at the
> microscopic level of our 
> discussions here, if I am thus better able to
> refrain from criticizing, 
> instead speaking to the values I hold?
> 
> Nick

My worry is that when you "speak to the values [you]
hold" you're just asserting something.  Since you root
all of these in religion, you're asserting the
unprovable and unfalsifiable.  You may be right or
wrong, but it's essentially impossible to debate.  If
you then suggest that people who disagree with you are
hypocritical or malign - as with the President in the
last couple of days, for example - then it becomes
difficult to do anything other than say, look, Nick
thinks God tells him what to do in Iraq and that since
I disagree with him, I'm disagreeing with God.  Maybe
that's not what you mean to say, but it's certainly
what you _seem_ to say.  

By contrast, I'm (currently) an academic, and
criticism is what we do.  When you're criticizing
someone you can be engaging with them.  In a real
sense criticism is a sign of respect - it says that
you take someone seriously enough to engage with their
ideas.  I don't have a problem with criticism, as long
as it's something I can engage with.  Criticism that
says these are things that can be done differently is
useful.  Criticism that seems to say I'm so morally
superior to you because I believe these things and you
don't - preening, in other words - is not.

In Wallis's case, it seems to me that all he's really
saying is "God agrees with me" - and he pairs that
with a pathetic anti-Americanism that goes down fine
on the left, but that the other ~90% of the American
population (correctly) rejects as something between
actively morally malign and just equivocating between
good and evil - and Christianity, I think, has
something to say about equivocators as well.  Lincoln
had something to say about people like that as well,
as I recall.  Preening seems like a big part of what
he does.  One could argue that it seems like a big
part of the environmental movement as well, for
example (why else prevent the use of DDT, for example?
 Rich white liberals could demonstrate how moral they
were - they were _Concerned_ about the environment -
without really giving up anything, because malaria had
already been wiped out in their countries, and if poor
brown people far away die in order to emphasize their
moral purity, well, so what?).  If I had to point out
the thing that really alienates the left from the rest
of the country and makes it difficult for it to win
elections, it's that attitude, and I suspect that
Wallis will make things worse, not better.

I don't know if that's a helpful answer to your
question, but it's the best I can come up with between classes.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. 
http://personals.yahoo.com

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> As to my message amounting to an "intrusion for no
> good reason," how do
> you figure? Was yours less so? Should we just sit
> quietly by when you
> demean the subjects of our conversations?
> 
> Dave

Recounting the facts from my perspective:
Julia mentioned Jim Wallis
I wrote a link to an article about him, and gave my
assessment of him.
You misinterpreted my statement in a way that seemed
an attack on me.

So I would say that you should sit quietly by if your
only contribution is to misinterpret a clear statement
on my part in a way that seems meant only to be a poor
attempt to make me look as if I'm attacking everyone's
favorite list member.  Otherwise, feel free to jump
in.  We all know how opinions that differ from today's
orthodoxy are treated here, so why should today be any different?

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Yahoo! Messenger 
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. 
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:24:56 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
> The fact that he's justifying bad ideas
> using the Bible doesn't make them less bad - 

"Fact?"  According to whom?

> although
> it does say something is very wrong with the
> Democratic Party that they're swallowing this guy's
> stuff whole.  

Did the Demos just change their stand on a whole bunch of issues?

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Erik Reuter]

* Gautam Mukunda ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> We all know how opinions that differ from today's orthodoxy are
> treated here, so why should today be any different?

Actually, Dave just doesn't pay attention very well.

--
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dave Land]

Gautam,
I think we've taken up about as much of the Brin-L oxygen as we need to
with this, but since you seem determined to persist, I will respond,
begging the indulgence of our listmates.
As to my message amounting to an "intrusion for no good reason," how 
do
you figure? Was yours less so? Should we just sit quietly by when you
demean the subjects of our conversations?
Recounting the facts from my perspective:
Julia mentioned Jim Wallis
I wrote a link to an article about him, and gave my assessment of him.
You misinterpreted my statement in a way that seemed an attack on me.
Correction: I interpreted your statement completely correctly: it was
most definitely an insult: delivered to Julie, directed at Wallis.
Evidently, I worded it so tersely as to leave my message open to
misinterpretation by Julie and by you. I subsequently clarified my
point, but you ignored that completely.
For the record: Gautam did not insult Julie. Gautam insulted Jim
Wallis.
So I would say that you should sit quietly by if your only contribution
is to misinterpret a clear statement on my part in a way that seems
meant only to be a poor attempt to make me look as if I'm attacking
everyone's favorite list member.
As to my supposed misinterpretation, "asked and answered, counsellor.
Move on."
As to your assumptions about my motives ("seems meant only to be a poor
attempt to make me look..."), we're all fond of Julie, but that had
nothing to do with my joining the fray. Perhaps you recall that I have
been involved in this thread since its inception, and was responsible
for the name change to reflect my redirection of its thrust towards the
ideas of Marcus Borg and other contemporary Biblical scholars, which
led to the discussion of Jim Wallis. As a result, I felt that it was at
least my privilege and perhaps my right to continue participating in it.
Otherwise, feel free to jump in. We all know how opinions that differ
from today's orthodoxy are treated here, so why should today be any
different?
My freedom to jump in was never at issue. I wouldn't know what today's
orthodoxy would be, exactly, but I know that pretty much all opinions
here are subject to contradiction, correction, approval and the
occasional quiet stomping to death.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dave Land]

On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Gautam Mukunda ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We all know how opinions that differ from today's orthodoxy are
treated here, so why should today be any different?
Actually, Dave just doesn't pay attention very well.
What? Did someone say something?
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> My worry is that when you "speak to the values [you]
> hold" you're just asserting something.  Since you root
> all of these in religion,

I root all my values in religion?  On this list?  Does it really seem that way 
from out there?

> you're asserting the
> unprovable and unfalsifiable.  You may be right or
> wrong, but it's essentially impossible to debate.  

What sort of values *are* provable or falsifiable?  I can't prove that it is 
right to feed hungry people and make health care available to all of our 
citizens, eventually to all people, but those are values-based statements, I 
think.  Is the "just war" principle provable?

> Nick
> thinks God tells him what to do in Iraq and that since
> I disagree with him, I'm disagreeing with God.  Maybe
> that's not what you mean to say, but it's certainly
> what you _seem_ to say.

Sounds like exactly what a lot of people say they're hearing from the White 
House.

As for criticism, I don't object to helpful criticism.  But I don't think 
that's the spirit of most criticism from the left these days, or more 
generally, of most of the criticism in mass media these days.  And those who 
offer nothing but criticism, as I'm wont to do, are failing to offer alternate 
vision, which makes their criticism useless.

For example, it seems useless to me to say, "Bring the troops home now," 
without a vision for how to achieve peace in Iraq.  It seems useless to insist 
on a pacifist response to terrorism without a vision of how to reduce or 
eliminate it in non-violent ways.  I don't want to play the game of defining 
myself by what I'm against.

> In Wallis's case, it seems to me that all he's really
> saying is "God agrees with me".

Sorry, but that is utterly the opposite of what he has written -- that's the 
very sort of attitude he rejects.  And so do I.  Have you read anything he's 
written?

> - and he pairs that
> with a pathetic anti-Americanism 

Again, that's completely wrong.  He addresses that very issue quite clearly.  
It is not anti-American to disagree.

> that goes down fine
> on the left, but that the other ~90% of the American
> population 

Cite?

> Preening seems like a big part of what
> he does.  

How much do you actually know about Jim Wallis?  I ask because that is so far 
off the mark, from my perspective.

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:49 AM, Dave Land wrote:
On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Gautam Mukunda ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We all know how opinions that differ from today's orthodoxy are
treated here, so why should today be any different?
Actually, Dave just doesn't pay attention very well.
What? Did someone say something?
Nothing significant.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Erik Reuter]

* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> Correction: I interpreted your statement completely correctly: it was
> most definitely an insult:

Take for example, "you're a doofus."  That was an example of something
that was most definitely an insult.

What Gautam wrote was an observation -- his thoughts on someone who
isn't likely to read it. Certainly a big difference from the above. It
looked like political criticism to me, and I would hazard most people
would agree.

My charitable interpretation of your whining was your usual lack of
attention. But you doth protest too much, now I am wondering whether
Gautam was right:

> As to your assumptions about my motives ("seems meant only to be a
> poor attempt to make me look..."),

--
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 5, 2005, at 12:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
This is one of the problems with most of the modern interpretations of
the Gospels. Where Iasus was being metaphorical, he is taken 
literally;
and where he was being literal, he is taken metaphorically.
I attended a seminar by Marcus Borg
(http://www.united.edu/portrait/borg.shtml) on Friday, a Jesus Seminar
fellow and prominent defender of the faith against Biblical literalism.
He described two forms of Christianity: an earlier "belief-based" 
paradigm
and an emerging "transformational paradigm." The interpretations you
rightly criticize above are the product of the former paradigm. The
latter may well be the antidote to it.
I sure hope there is an antidote. American Christianity is rapidly 
beginning to resemble Middle East Islam. Both in the sense of 
insistence on hardline radical fundamentalism steeped in narrow 
interpretations of marginally-relevant texts; and in the sense of 
trying to turn our government into a theocracy.

Those who consider themselves moderate Christians really need to 
mobilize and push the radicals back into the fringe, where they belong. 
Else we're going to see more actions like the ridiculous Congressional 
invasion of the Schiavo case.

And with "No Child Left Behind" -- a patent lie if ever there was one 
-- Fed standards dictate what's taught. Given the fact that Bush can't 
even pronounce "nuclear" correctly, do we really want his 
administration making decisions about what constitutes good education? 
"Abstinence only" and "Intelligent Design" are likely to be the bywords 
for a long time to come if these jack-booted thugs have their way.

This kind of garbage should piss off any moderate; since I suspect a 
lot of the agenda is right-wing driven, there's got to be a backlash 
that originates in the Christian community to really have an effect.

The emerging paradigm emphasizes that the Christian life is about a
relationship with God that transforms us.
This form of Christianity holds that scripture is a human product -- 
the
"wisdom tradition" of Christianity's Jewish and Christian spiritual
ancestors. It takes a historical/metaphorical view of Scripture, rather
than a literal/factual view. As one wag put it, "The Bible is true, and
some of it actually happened." Biblical stories are "poetry plus and 
not
science minus," in the words of a Swedish proverb. Salvation is a
process of transformation that begins now, is both personal and
political, spiritual and social, affects temporal life, and is
universally available.
As you have noted this isn't that emergent; it might be one side of a 
seesaw though. The Enlightenment and Reformation, I thought, were also 
about emphasizing rational discourse over theocracy and monotheistic 
imperialism.

Lay people *really need* to study the Bible's history as well as its 
contents, and they need to *not* rely on clergy to interpret the text 
for them. That was one reason James translated the Vulgate into (at the 
time) modern English. He wanted to get away from the text being under 
the control of the priesthood.

Knowing that the pentateuch was not authored by one individual, but 
several, is alone a transformative experience for many of the faithful. 
Knowing that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses is another. 
Those threatened are they who hold the Bible to be infallible. 
Ignorance allows that idea to remain present in the churchgoing 
population. How anyone can, in good conscience, allow that ignorance to 
persist -- even encourage it -- is beyond me, but I am not a greedy, 
power-mad bastard.

Personally, I think that this is what Jesus was talking about when (OK,
if) he said "I have come that you might have life, and have it
abundantly," and "the kingdom of God is among you." It's now, folks:
enjoy it!
Yes. "The Kingdom of God is at hand" does not mean there will be a 
second coming or an establishment of Heaven on Earth. It means, very 
simply, this is it. This is the kingdom of god, right here, right now. 
It's within your grasp. Pick it up or miss the message entirely.

There are analogues in other teachings. Buddhists believe that we're 
all fundamentally good, that we all carry in us the seeds of 
enlightenment, realization, buddhahood. That's diametrically opposed to 
the Christian tenet of original sin. But I think that's what Iasus was 
trying to convey -- the Kingdom of God is within. It's already there. 
You don't have to do anything special to get there. Just uncover it in 
yourself.

Ironically, viewing the Bible metaphorically strengthens, rather than
weakens it, freeing it from the crazy idea that it must be considered
factual in every respect. Untold millions of intelligent, sensitive
people have been turned off by this unsupportable idea. The Bible is
completely pre-scientific, assumes a world view in which slavery is a
routine and acceptable form of labor, and plainly contradicts itself
time and

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 5, 2005, at 6:59 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:48:50 +0100, William T Goodall wrote
But the fundamentalists are the fastest growing Christian sects.
I see this as part of a trend that goes far beyond Christianity and 
far beyond
religion.  Fundamentalism of all sorts is on the rise, which I think 
is a
typical outcome of social and economic injustice.  And the Bible has a 
great
deal to say about that.
Not just injustice -- uncertainty. When there's a lot of social stress 
such as war, pestilence, famine, etc., it seems that hardline sects get 
stronger. People seem to want to find a meaning in the chaos, and since 
a lot of the fundie cults offer putative meaning, they become 
attractive.

Thing is, there is no meaning.
Jim Wallis makes a nice observation that the answer to bad theology 
isn't
secularism, it's good theology.  I'd imagine you think there's no such 
thing..
.?
I think my atheology is pretty sound. ;) Don't know how WTG feels. If 
the choice is limited to extremist religious expression versus 
moderate, I'd rather see the moderate.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

Friends,

For what it may be worth, I don't think that calling someone "a stunningly 
unimpresive (sic) figure" is an insult, as such.  I took it as a statement of 
Gautam's true experience of the man.  Gautam was stunned by how unimpressed he 
was with Jim Wallis, is how I heard it.  No big deal, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm unimpressed with just about everybody on television these days (or at 
least I was when I still watched, about a year ago), which made me more than a 
little reluctant to go on camera myself.  And that's just what I talked to Jim 
Wallis about when I met him.  But finding them unimpressive isn't an insult, 
it's just how I respond.

I don't think it's appropriate to disagree with the response -- it's Guatam's 
response and it is what it is.  I've had a different experience of Jim Wallis, 
which doesn't make either of us right or wrong... it just means that he makes 
different impressions on us.  In other words, to me, this wasn't about issues 
on which we might truly disagree.

By the way, for those of you who are in the Bay Area, Wallis will speak at 
Grace Cathedral on Sunday morning.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:23:16 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote

> What Gautam wrote was an observation -- his thoughts on someone who
> isn't likely to read it. Certainly a big difference from the above. 
> It looked like political criticism to me, and I would hazard most people
> would agree.

Good heavens, we agree.

Mark your calendars.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:34:22 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote

> Not just injustice -- uncertainty. When there's a lot of social 
> stress such as war, pestilence, famine, etc., it seems that hardline 
> sects get stronger. People seem to want to find a meaning in the 
> chaos, and since a lot of the fundie cults offer putative meaning, 
> they become attractive.

Indeed.  Simple answers become attractive.

> Thing is, there is no meaning.

What do you mean?

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 6, 2005, at 10:46 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:34:22 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
Not just injustice -- uncertainty. When there's a lot of social
stress such as war, pestilence, famine, etc., it seems that hardline
sects get stronger. People seem to want to find a meaning in the
chaos, and since a lot of the fundie cults offer putative meaning,
they become attractive.
Indeed.  Simple answers become attractive.
Thing is, there is no meaning.
What do you mean?
Mu.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They've taught me a great deal that helps me resist
my natural tendency to
criticize.  I suspect that you are as aware as
anyone of that trait in me, so
what do you think?  Is this a good thing at the
microscopic level of our
discussions here, if I am thus better able to
refrain from criticizing,
instead speaking to the values I hold?
Nick
My worry is that when you "speak to the values [you]
hold" you're just asserting something.
Would a rationale for those values help you with that concern?
Since you root
all of these in religion, you're asserting the
unprovable and unfalsifiable.
Ethics, based in anything, is hard to falsify, isn't it?
You may be right or
wrong, but it's essentially impossible to debate.  If
you then suggest that people who disagree with you are
hypocritical or malign - as with the President in the
last couple of days, for example - then it becomes
difficult to do anything other than say, look, Nick
thinks God tells him what to do in Iraq and that since
I disagree with him, I'm disagreeing with God.  Maybe
that's not what you mean to say, but it's certainly
what you _seem_ to say.
The flipside of that is that this is precisely the subtext that is 
coming from the right wingers.

In Wallis's case, it seems to me that all he's really
saying is "God agrees with me" - and he pairs that
with a pathetic anti-Americanism that goes down fine
on the left, but that the other ~90% of the American
population (correctly) rejects as something between
actively morally malign and just equivocating between
good and evil - and Christianity, I think, has
something to say about equivocators as well.
Where'd you get the ~90% figure?
Preening seems like a big part of what
he does.  One could argue that it seems like a big
part of the environmental movement as well, for
example (why else prevent the use of DDT, for example?
Because DDT thins birds' egg shells. The biggest reason bald eagles are 
endangered is DDT -- it thinned the birds' shells so drastically that 
many embryos never survived to full development.

Is that a sufficient reason?
Rich white liberals could demonstrate how moral they
were - they were _Concerned_ about the environment -
without really giving up anything, because malaria had
already been wiped out in their countries, and if poor
brown people far away die in order to emphasize their
moral purity, well, so what?).  If I had to point out
the thing that really alienates the left from the rest
of the country and makes it difficult for it to win
elections, it's that attitude, and I suspect that
Wallis will make things worse, not better.
This is fascinating, because it's the rich white conservatives *now* 
that are ignoring the status of poor brown people, such as those in the 
Sudan, or the thousands dead in Iraq because of a misbegotten war 
pressed electively on verified-false data.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Martin Lewis]

On Apr 6, 2005 5:16 PM, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> he does.  One could argue that it seems like a big
> part of the environmental movement as well, for
> example (why else prevent the use of DDT, for example?
> Rich white liberals could demonstrate how moral they
> were - they were _Concerned_ about the environment -
> without really giving up anything, because malaria had
> already been wiped out in their countries, and if poor
> brown people far away die in order to emphasize their
> moral purity, well, so what?).

 Except, of course, that's not true.

 http://www.who.int/malaria/vectorcontrol.html

 Nice smear though.

 Martin
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Martin Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)


> On Apr 6, 2005 5:16 PM, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > he does.  One could argue that it seems like a big
> > part of the environmental movement as well, for
> > example (why else prevent the use of DDT, for example?
> > Rich white liberals could demonstrate how moral they
> > were - they were _Concerned_ about the environment -
> > without really giving up anything, because malaria had
> > already been wiped out in their countries, and if poor
> > brown people far away die in order to emphasize their
> > moral purity, well, so what?).
>
>  Except, of course, that's not true.
>
>  http://www.who.int/malaria/vectorcontrol.html
>
>  Nice smear though.
>
>  Martin

Except, of course, it isn't done very much.  They don't spray in Zambia and
Neli has had malaria four times. They sprayed a good deal until the '70s
when environmentalists have convinced Africans that the dangers outweigh
the risks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/1677073.stm

It has just been restarted in South Africa because the malaria epidemic was
getting much worse.  DDT is cheap and effective, and the environmental
damage from targeted spraying, while real, needs to be weighed against
hundreds of thousands of deaths/year.

Other hits on that google discuss spraying as controversial.  Why should it
be?

Now, if you can find articles that says groups like Greenpeace support DDT
spraying in African, then I stand corrected.  But I don't think you will.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)


> On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> > --- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> They've taught me a great deal that helps me resist
> >> my natural tendency to
> >> criticize.  I suspect that you are as aware as
> >> anyone of that trait in me, so
> >> what do you think?  Is this a good thing at the
> >> microscopic level of our
> >> discussions here, if I am thus better able to
> >> refrain from criticizing,
> >> instead speaking to the values I hold?
> >>
> >> Nick
> >
> > My worry is that when you "speak to the values [you]
> > hold" you're just asserting something.
>
> Would a rationale for those values help you with that concern?
>
> > Since you root
> > all of these in religion, you're asserting the
> > unprovable and unfalsifiable.
>
> Ethics, based in anything, is hard to falsify, isn't it?
>
> > You may be right or
> > wrong, but it's essentially impossible to debate.  If
> > you then suggest that people who disagree with you are
> > hypocritical or malign - as with the President in the
> > last couple of days, for example - then it becomes
> > difficult to do anything other than say, look, Nick
> > thinks God tells him what to do in Iraq and that since
> > I disagree with him, I'm disagreeing with God.  Maybe
> > that's not what you mean to say, but it's certainly
> > what you _seem_ to say.
>
> The flipside of that is that this is precisely the subtext that is
> coming from the right wingers.
>
> > In Wallis's case, it seems to me that all he's really
> > saying is "God agrees with me" - and he pairs that
> > with a pathetic anti-Americanism that goes down fine
> > on the left, but that the other ~90% of the American
> > population (correctly) rejects as something between
> > actively morally malign and just equivocating between
> > good and evil - and Christianity, I think, has
> > something to say about equivocators as well.
>
> Where'd you get the ~90% figure?
>
> > Preening seems like a big part of what
> > he does.  One could argue that it seems like a big
> > part of the environmental movement as well, for
> > example (why else prevent the use of DDT, for example?
>
> Because DDT thins birds' egg shells. The biggest reason bald eagles are
> endangered is DDT -- it thinned the birds' shells so drastically that
> many embryos never survived to full development.
>
> Is that a sufficient reason?

It depends on priorities.  We already eliminated malaria in the US.  Using
DDT, one can greatly reduce the risks of brain damage and death in Africa.
A great deal does not have to be used, a spraying of the inside of huts.
The present death rate is 200k/year.  When Neli went back to Zambia I was
worried I'd never see her again.  If the price of saving 200k human
lives/year is a modest risk of environmental damage, so be it.



> This is fascinating, because it's the rich white conservatives *now*
> that are ignoring the status of poor brown people, such as those in the
> Sudan,

Well, my Zambian daughter Neli said she hated to admit it but Bush pushed
more than anyone else in power in the world to do something about it.  Much
beyond what was done, the only possibility was an even more unpopular
unilateral war against Arabs.  The US was regularly thwarted at the UN when
they tried to push for stronger actions.

>or the thousands dead in Iraq because of a misbegotten war  pressed
electively on verified-false data.

Why are you so sure that Bush does not believe in the vision he proclaims.
I have and continue to criticize him for the utterly incompetent way he
handed the first 20-some months of the occupation.  One could fairly say
that the US's bungling of that period resulted in thousands if not tens of
thousands of deaths.  One could reasonable take a conservative stand
against the incompetent do-goodism of Bush.

Of the public stands on this,  Tom Friedman's comes closest to mine,
although we weighed the factors differently and came to different
conclusions. What's amazing to me now is how well things are going,
considering the fact that we might not have been able to bungle things
worse if we tried.  I heard a report that the Muslim Scholars Association
has now come out saying that joining the police force is a good thing and
that the insurgents are simply hurting people.

I guess what really struck me was how Bush was criticized for going the UN
route in Sudan and not going it in Iraq.  On a practical basis, I could see
the criticism...but it seemed to me that your argument wasn't a nuts and
bolts argument about the details of each, but an argument that you put
forth as one of basic principals.

Dan M.

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 3:34 PM

> >  Except, of course, that's not true.
> >
> >  http://www.who.int/malaria/vectorcontrol.html
> >
> >  Nice smear though.

Oh, I just found an interesting long article on it

http://www.cis.org.au/policy/Spring01/polspr01-1.pdf

IMHO, Martin, the evidence given in this report looks pretty good.  But, of
course, if you see problems with this report, I'm open to seeing other
evidence.  Someone I consider a daughter's life is involved in this, so you
can appreciate how much I want to get this right.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Martin Lewis]

On Apr 6, 2005 9:34 PM, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > > he does.  One could argue that it seems like a big
> > > part of the environmental movement as well, for
> > > example (why else prevent the use of DDT, for example?
> > > Rich white liberals could demonstrate how moral they
> > > were - they were _Concerned_ about the environment -
> > > without really giving up anything, because malaria had
> > > already been wiped out in their countries, and if poor
> > > brown people far away die in order to emphasize their
> > > moral purity, well, so what?).
> >
> >  Except, of course, that's not true.
> >
> >  http://www.who.int/malaria/vectorcontrol.html
>
> Except, of course, it isn't done very much.

 This has nothing to do with rich white liberals preventing poor brown
people from having DDT.

>  They don't spray in Zambia and
> Neli has had malaria four times. They sprayed a good deal until the '70s
> when environmentalists have convinced Africans that the dangers outweigh
> the risks.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/1677073.stm

 What are you trying to suggest? That Africans are incapable of making
informed decsisions? Dr Samuel Mabunda and Dr Avertino Barreto have
been tricked by Western environmentalists? I don't see how that link
supports Guatam's accusation in any way.
 
> It has just been restarted in South Africa because the malaria epidemic was
> getting much worse.  DDT is cheap and effective, and the environmental
> damage from targeted spraying, while real, needs to be weighed against
> hundreds of thousands of deaths/year.

 So basically it all comes down to cost.

> Other hits on that google discuss spraying as controversial.  Why should it
> be?

 You've just posted a link saying why.
 
> Now, if you can find articles that says groups like Greenpeace support DDT
> spraying in African, then I stand corrected.  But I don't think you will.

 I think the Greenpeace/WWF line is that DDT should be banned and
replaced with safer, more expensive substitutes. Again though this is
irrelevant. Have environmentalists killed anyone through their
objection to the agricultural use of DDT in the developed world? No.

 Martin
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Martin Lewis]

On Apr 6, 2005 10:00 PM, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > >  Except, of course, that's not true.
> > >
> > >  http://www.who.int/malaria/vectorcontrol.html
> > >
> > >  Nice smear though.
> 
> Oh, I just found an interesting long article on it
> 
> http://www.cis.org.au/policy/Spring01/polspr01-1.pdf

 An article by Roger Bate of the American Enterprise Institute. Great.

 Martin
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dan Minette]

> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/1677073.stm
>
>  What are you trying to suggest? That Africans are incapable of making
> informed decsisions?

No, they are not incapable of making informed decisions...it's just that,
like everyone else, they can be influenced by false statements and be
pressured.  Are you arguing that that the precipitous drop in DDT use in
Third World countries was just



>Dr Samuel Mabunda and Dr Avertino Barreto have
> been tricked by Western environmentalists? I don't see how that link
> supports Guatam's accusation in any way.

DDT spraying has been greatly reduced/stopped in many third world countries
after strong pressure from environmental groups.  Are you saying that this
is a coincidence?  That people who advocate something harmful have no
responsiblity if they ideas are implemented?

> > It has just been restarted in South Africa because the malaria epidemic
was
> > getting much worse.  DDT is cheap and effective, and the environmental
> > damage from targeted spraying, while real, needs to be weighed against
> > hundreds of thousands of deaths/year.

>  So basically it all comes down to cost.

"It's only money" is a statement that only the wealthy can make.  My
daughter Neli's reaction to accidently breaking a cheap glass brought this
home for me.  She was almost in hysterics when she did it, but it was no
big deal to us.  She told us that her mom would yell at her for two weeks
for such an action and would take twice the amount out of her bride price.
A running account was kept.

> > Other hits on that google discuss spraying as controversial.  Why
should it
> > be?
>
>  You've just posted a link saying why.


>  I think the Greenpeace/WWF line is that DDT should be banned and
> replaced with safer, more expensive substitutes. Again though this is
> irrelevant. Have environmentalists killed anyone through their
> objection to the agricultural use of DDT in the developed world? No.

They objected to all use.  Just spend more money isn't an option when the
per capita income of a country is 800/year.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dan Minette]

Arrg, idea not finished.

> No, they are not incapable of making informed decisions...it's just that,
> like everyone else, they can be influenced by false statements and be
> pressured.  Are you arguing that that the precipitous drop in DDT use in
> Third World countries

after pressure was applied by Western countries was just coincidence?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Martin Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)


> On Apr 6, 2005 10:00 PM, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > > >  Except, of course, that's not true.
> > > >
> > > >  http://www.who.int/malaria/vectorcontrol.html
> > > >
> > > >  Nice smear though.
> >
> > Oh, I just found an interesting long article on it
> >
> > http://www.cis.org.au/policy/Spring01/polspr01-1.pdf
>
>  An article by Roger Bate of the American Enterprise Institute. Great.

OK, you don't like his political position.  Can you find falsehoods.  Would
you accept

http://www.fightingmalaria.org/research.php?ID=20&month=

or

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/africa/2003/0529malaria.htm

The first is an African group, and the second is the Christian Science
Monitor.  In particular, we should note the lack of international funding
for DDT.  Do you think this is unconnected with the political power of the
environmental movement?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, I just found an interesting long article on it
> 
> http://www.cis.org.au/policy/Spring01/polspr01-1.pdf
> 
> IMHO, Martin, the evidence given in this report
> looks pretty good.  But, of
> course, if you see problems with this report, I'm
> open to seeing other
> evidence.  Someone I consider a daughter's life is
> involved in this, so you
> can appreciate how much I want to get this right.
> 
> Dan M.

And, of course, I have _lots_ of family whose life is
at risk from this decision, so it's kind of important
to me as well.  It's not an issue that I've looked at
superficially - the evidence on the issue, so far as I
can tell, is quite overwhelming.  In fact, the best
use of DDT for malaria prevention is as a paste on the
walls of homes (where it can have no environmental
effects) - and the environmental movement has lobbied
very heavily against that, and convinced western
governments not to fund even that use of DDT, as well
as the use of DDT-implanted anti-mosquito netting (DDT
has a secondary effect as an irritant which mosquitos
don't seem to evolve a resistance to, which makes it
very effective when used in doors).

Finally, no one in favor of DDT usage has an agenda on
this issue, so far as I can tell.  No one makes any
money off DDT - it's an old chemical, and industry has
generally been in favor of replacing it with other,
more profitable, chemicals.  You're generally in favor
of using DDT if you think using it is a good idea. 
But since some people would rather attack people who
disagree with them than look at the evidence (after
all, no one important is dying, right?) it's pretty
clear how this one comes out.  Of course, if those
people had ever seen what a case of malaria looks
like, they might have a slightly different view.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. 
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Martin Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Except, of course, that's not true.
> 
>  http://www.who.int/malaria/vectorcontrol.html
> 
>  Nice smear though.
> 
>  Martin

And we refuse to fund DDT usage why, exactly?  The
environmental movement has (and, in fact, continues
to) push for a worldwide ban on DDT usage
because...I'm sure you'll explain it to me, Martin. 
What's (hypothetical, and vastly overstated) thinning
of birds' egg shells compared to a few hundred
thousand Africans and Asians every year?

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Yahoo! Messenger 
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. 
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 03:48 PM Wednesday 4/6/2005, Dan Minette wrote:
I guess what really struck me was how Bush was criticized for going the UN
route in Sudan and not going it in Iraq.  On a practical basis, I could see
the criticism...but it seemed to me that your argument wasn't a nuts and
bolts argument about the details of each, but an argument that you put
forth as one of basic principals.

Not meant as an insult toward anyone here, but it has been my observation 
that many who object to the war in Iraq have as their basic principle that 
"Bush is evil."  Generally, when I find out that that is their main 
argument, I tend to give little or no weight to the rest of their opinions 
on the topics of what he or "the Republicans" have done, because there is 
no way in their worldview that GWB could do anything good.

--Ronn! :)
"Everybody is entitled to his own ridiculous opinion."
-- W. C. Widenhouse, Capt., USAF, ca. 1977 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because DDT thins birds' egg shells. The biggest
> reason bald eagles are 
> endangered is DDT -- it thinned the birds' shells so
> drastically that 
> many embryos never survived to full development.
> 
> Is that a sufficient reason?

Well, first, no, it's not a sufficient reason.  Not at
all.  But, second, it's _not even true_.  Bald eagles
_aren't_ endangered.  They're actually a _pest_ in
parts of Alaska, there are so many of them.  DDT used
for malarial prevention - indoor spraying, daubing on
the walls of homes, and DDT -implanted mosquito nets -
doesn't even get out into the environment, much less
pose a threat.

Despite this, we see continuing attacks on its use:
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/DDAD-699MXX?OpenDocument
describes the EU threatening to ban exports of foods
from countries where DDT-spraying is used.  Funny,
btw, how the same countries keep cropping up over and
over again, the ones that it's so horrible the US is
opposed by.  Hmm.

Tina Rosenberg has a good article on the topic:
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/ontheside/news/ddt_nytimes0404.pdf

There's also a good article in The Washington Monthly
on the topic:
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/15599/

Finally, Warren, as usual you rant about Iraq.  Have
you been paying attention to what's happening over
there?  You know, the successful election, the
formation of a government with a Kurdish President,
things like that.  If Iraq does end up as a stable
democracy - and the odds of that are higher than they
have ever been in all of Iraqi history - are you going
to come back and admit that those evil
neoconservatives destroyed one of the vilest
governments on earth and replaced it with something
pretty good _while you did everything you could to
stop it from happening_?  Who, in that equation, will
have been looking out for poor, brown people who are
far away?

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Yahoo! Messenger 
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. 
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:19:34 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote

> Not meant as an insult toward anyone here, but it has been my 
> observation that many who object to the war in Iraq have as their 
> basic principle that "Bush is evil."  

Yuck, may I say.  The battle for good and evil is not "out there" somewhere, 
it is in our hearts, every one of them.  That's where peace starts, I believe, 
though the mouth often rapidly becomes involved.

It's not that I object to the war so much as I want to do everything possible 
to end this one with justice and prevent, avoid and make unnecessary any 
future ones.  To me, that calls for new ways of conflict resolution, sometimes 
living with conflict, and so forth.  Just the fact that humanity has had 
nuclear weapons for 60 years is reason enough to work very hard to find new 
ways to deal with conflict.  Terrorism only adds incentive.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:48:44 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> If Iraq does end up as a stable
> democracy - and the odds of that are higher than they
> have ever been in all of Iraqi history - are you going
> to come back and admit that those evil
> neoconservatives destroyed one of the vilest
> governments on earth and replaced it with something
> pretty good _while you did everything you could to
> stop it from happening_?  Who, in that equation, will
> have been looking out for poor, brown people who are
> far away?

Are you saying that Warren been trying to prevent democracy in Iraq?

Are you saying that war is the only way to get rid of an evil dictator?  Or 
war was the only way to get rid of this one?  Am I mistaken in believing that 
in almost every other case, our policy has been not to go to war for that 
reason?  Is "removing an evil dictator" justification for this war?

For what it's worth, there is no major religion that accepts such a 
justification.  There are two great religious traditions with regard to war -- 
pacifism and "just war" theology.  The latter never allows for a pre-emptive 
war.  Virtually every major religious body in the world (the one notable 
exception being the Southern Baptist Association) urged us not to undertake 
it, before it began, which means before we even knew for sure that Iraq was no 
threat to us.

Very aggressive inspections by an international force more like police than 
military, indicting the leader in a world court and other pressure could be 
brought to bear in such situations.  Well-developed policies and plans for 
such intervention, backed by international agreement, would go a very long way 
toward peace.  And so would many things that I have a direct part in -- 
consumption of oil and other scarce resouces, more diverse voices in the 
media, a more intelligent national discussion of issues and values...

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 07:07 PM Wednesday 4/6/2005, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:19:34 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote
> Not meant as an insult toward anyone here, but it has been my
> observation that many who object to the war in Iraq have as their
> basic principle that "Bush is evil."
Yuck, may I say.  The battle for good and evil is not "out there" somewhere,
it is in our hearts, every one of them.  That's where peace starts, I 
believe,
though the mouth often rapidly becomes involved.

It's not that I object to the war so much as I want to do everything possible
to end this one with justice and prevent, avoid and make unnecessary any
future ones.  To me, that calls for new ways of conflict resolution, 
sometimes
living with conflict, and so forth.  Just the fact that humanity has had
nuclear weapons for 60 years is reason enough to work very hard to find new
ways to deal with conflict.  Terrorism only adds incentive.

I think we agree on that.
Obligatory Second Line Maru
--Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Julia Thompson]

Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's a listmate, making a perfectly reasonable
request for
suggestions, and she gets an insult instead.
Dave

No, it was an assessment of _someone else_.  I wasn't
insulting her.  I do think his version of "God's
Politics" might as well be titled "My Politics", which
is egregious.  The fact that he's justifying bad ideas
using the Bible doesn't make them less bad - although
it does say something is very wrong with the
Democratic Party that they're swallowing this guy's
stuff whole.  It's also not an insult when I ask you
why you saw fit to both misinterpret what I was saying
and intrude for no good reason, either.
1)  I don't think it's out of line to assess someone not on the list in 
a negative manner.  I think "insult" might have been a little strong. 
It looked to me like Gautam was giving his opinion.  If I gave my 
opinion of Ted Kennedy here, it would be less flattering.  Public 
figures are fair game, especially if it's just "here's my impression of 
this person".

2)  I'm wondering how much Gautam knows about Jim Wallis' ideas to call 
them "bad".  I think a debate on the merits and demerits of Wallis's 
ideas would be interesting and would edify me without my having to 
darken the doors of Barnes & Noble, or add to the giant sucking sound 
coming from amazon.com, aimed at my bank account.  :)  (They don't have 
any of his stuff at the Half Price Books in Round Rock today.)  Nick and 
Dave have been going on as if Jim Wallis was the closest thing they've 
seen to the Messiah so far this year (OK, maybe that's an exaggeration), 
and I've heard negative opinions of him from others.  I'd love to see a 
reasoned, civil discussion on the question.  Will I get my wish?

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
 I'd love to see a
> reasoned, civil discussion on the question.  Will I get my wish?

Won't you settle for a rude ignorant flame war on the subject?  They are so
much easier to find. :-)  Once I get a bit more caught up, I'll put my own
two cents in on the general subject.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)


> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:48:44 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
>
> > If Iraq does end up as a stable
> > democracy - and the odds of that are higher than they
> > have ever been in all of Iraqi history - are you going
> > to come back and admit that those evil
> > neoconservatives destroyed one of the vilest
> > governments on earth and replaced it with something
> > pretty good _while you did everything you could to
> > stop it from happening_?  Who, in that equation, will
> > have been looking out for poor, brown people who are
> > far away?
>
>
> Are you saying that war is the only way to get rid of an evil dictator?

It can be.  Bush I and Clinton tried other means for ~12 years.  I think,
after that time, it was safe to say that Hussian wasn't losing his grip on
the country and wouldn't without an invasion.

Again, let me state that I was opposed to going in because I didn't think
we were prepared to handle the peace afterwards.  We might suceed in spite
of ourselves...but if we do or not, the question with regards to Iraq has
always been a practical one to me.  The practical questions need to be
answered with ethics in mind, but I see nothing inherently wrong in
overturning Hussein with military power.  Whether it was right or wrong to
me depended on the best assessment we could make of our ability to suceed
in nation building.  Gautam and I were on opposite sides of this question,
but I saw our differences as differences in assesment of practical
questions, not questions of principal.


>Or
> war was the only way to get rid of this one?  Am I mistaken in believing
that
> in almost every other case, our policy has been not to go to war for that
> reason?  Is "removing an evil dictator" justification for this war?

Well, let's look at three other cases

1) The Balkins

2) Rwanda

3) The Sudan
1) In the first case, Clinton finally pushed Europe into violating
international law to stop the Serbians in their actions of genocide/ethnic
cleansing.  The Dutchbat report gives excrutiating detail on how the UN's
policy was to break it's word concerning protection and stand aside to
allow genocide.  Since Russia supported Serbia, there was no legal way for
NATO to act.  It did anyways.

Serbia did not pose a direct risk to the US.  It did pose an indirect risk
to Europe, so the European governments went along with the US after Clinton
pushed.  This was only after years of trying to stop the conflict through
the UN.

2) In the second case, Clinton did not stop the genocide in Rwanda.  He
admited guilt for that, and I think that is valid.  But, there was no will
at the UN to stop the genocide.  It would have been illegal to stop the
genocide.  There would have been an outcry against it.  American soldiers
may have found themselves in a quagmire.  They question is, would it be
moral to illegally save 500,000 lives?  In this case, we know that there
wasn't time for other options, the genocide happened quickly.

3) In Sudan, there has been a lot of opposition to any effective action
concerning the genocide.  Bush has not done enough, in my opinion, but even
Neli had to admit he did far more than anyone else.  In addition, he was
stopped from doing anything effectively through the UN.  There is one good
practical reasons for countries to look the other way with the
genocide...Arabs have a lot more oil than black Africans.

Gautam, a couple of years ago, listed four questions that must be answered
in the affirmative for a war of choice to be waged by the US.

1) Is it in the best interest of the US?
2) Is it in the best interest of the people in the country/area?
3) Have other realistic options been tried already?
4) Is the a reasonable good chance that the war will achieve the desired
outcome.

This was just before Gulf War II.  I think they are a good list of
questions.  They met virtually no response.  I think it would be useful to
either question, modify, or use these criteria in evaluating our actions.
It should be clear that my objections were with point  4 (including
problems that would come to surface after the war), which led to my
questioning 1.  Gautam had a more sanguine view of 4, which let to an
affirmative answer for 1.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 4/6/2005 12:16:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Rich white liberals could demonstrate how moral they
> were - they were _Concerned_ about the environment -
> without really giving up anything, because malaria had
> already been wiped out in their countries, and if poor
> brown people far away die in order to emphasize their
> moral purity, well, so what?).  

Well - It is only recently that the notion that DDT was in fact useful in 
fighting Malaria has come into the public consciousness. When it was initially 
discovered that DDT was thinning the eggs of birds and rapidly killing off 
raptors there was a reaction to pesticide. At the time, it was thougth that we 
could replace DDT with less toxic agents. Over the years we have become sadly 
wiser. But old habits and ideas die hard. But die they do. Bottom line, you 
denegate "rich white liberals" for no particular reason other than to create 
your 
usual demons.

By the way, Pedro looked good in his first start for the mets.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Robert Seeberger]

Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> --- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because DDT thins birds' egg shells. The biggest
>> reason bald eagles are
>> endangered is DDT -- it thinned the birds' shells so
>> drastically that
>> many embryos never survived to full development.
>>
>> Is that a sufficient reason?
>
> Well, first, no, it's not a sufficient reason.  Not at
> all.  But, second, it's _not even true_.  Bald eagles
> _aren't_ endangered.  They're actually a _pest_ in
> parts of Alaska, there are so many of them.  DDT used
> for malarial prevention - indoor spraying, daubing on
> the walls of homes, and DDT -implanted mosquito nets -
> doesn't even get out into the environment, much less
> pose a threat.
>
[Snip contemporary info]

The problem with pre-ban DDT usage was that it was used 
indiscriminately, being sprayed from crop dusters and the like until 
it had a fairly constant presence in the enviroment. That *did* cause 
problems.

The kind of uses Gautam proposes would have a miniscule impact while 
providing something of a moderate prophylactic effect for millions of 
people in malaria endemic areas. I would support this kind of 
discriminating use of DDT.

DDT is one of the best pest control chemicals ever devised, but it 
does have a few effects that are negative. It did almost kill off our 
national symbol, but the Bald Eagle has bounced back pretty well. 
(I've even seen one here near Houston. Awesome sight.) Careful and 
specific use of DDT would probably not cause any damage we could not 
remedy.

xponent
Single Topic Post Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Julia Thompson]

Dave Land wrote:
As to your assumptions about my motives ("seems meant only to be a poor
attempt to make me look..."), we're all fond of Julie, but that had
nothing to do with my joining the fray. 
All fond?  That's very flattering.  I'm not sure it's entirely accurate, 
but I'm flattered by the compliment.  :)

Where did I go from "Julia" to "Julie", though?  I don't mind entirely, 
many people call me "Julie", but "Julia" to me sounds a little more 
serious and respectable, and I've got enough handicaps the other way 
(small, cute) that I prefer to use "Julia" in a number of situations. 
Yet somehow after I meet someone from the list, in something off-list to 
several people I often end up being referred to as "Julie" by the person 
who just met me.   (The person I met on-list whom I saw most recently 
has not done this, though.)

Julia
who is on another mailing list with at least 2 other "Julia"s, which 
makes for interesting clarification issues.  (No, I'm not the one that 
built the pressure suit, I'm the one who had twins.)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Julia Thompson]

Nick Arnett wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:16:02 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

As for criticism, I don't object to helpful criticism.  But I don't think 
that's the spirit of most criticism from the left these days, or more 
generally, of most of the criticism in mass media these days.  And those who 
offer nothing but criticism, as I'm wont to do, are failing to offer alternate 
vision, which makes their criticism useless.
To a certain extent, yes, but in a way, no.
At one point, my boss wanted us to not point out problems unless we 
could suggest solutions.  I was seeing problems that I had no *clue* as 
to how to fix (the problem being of the sysadmin sort, not the billing 
sort), but with that directive in place, I wasn't allowed to bring those 
up at the weekly meetings.  (The rule changed within a month, but it was 
frustrating for a little while.)

Sometimes the more constructive thing to do is to narrow the focus of 
the criticism and then say "I'm not sure how to solve this, can we 
discuss possibilities?"  Then kick ideas around and see if something 
better emerges.  (This only works in a group environment, such as a 
mailing list, and not a solitary environment, such as a column in a 
periodical.)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)



> I've seen him on TV and found him to be a stunningly
> unimpresive figure...The Weekly Standard just ran an
> article on him:
>
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/441oqlsg.asp
>

I googled and read some of his interviews and quotes from the past year.
This is not meant to be insulting Gautam, but he appears to hold _your_
position on a number of issues.  Clearly, not on the Iraq war, but even on
the question of pacifism and tyranny, there is a quote from God's Politics
that sounds consistent with your views.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Robert Seeberger]

Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> 2)  I'm wondering how much Gautam knows about Jim Wallis' ideas to
> call them "bad".  I think a debate on the merits and demerits of
> Wallis's ideas would be interesting and would edify me without my
> having to darken the doors of Barnes & Noble, or add to the giant
> sucking sound coming from amazon.com, aimed at my bank account.  :) 
> (They don't have any of his stuff at the Half Price Books in Round
> Rock today.)  Nick and Dave have been going on as if Jim Wallis was
> the closest thing they've seen to the Messiah so far this year (OK,
> maybe that's an exaggeration), and I've heard negative opinions of
> him from others.  I'd love to see a reasoned, civil discussion on 
> the
> question.  Will I get my wish?
> Julia

And you have been on Brin-L how long?


xponent
Invoking Sturgeons Law Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Julia Thompson]

Robert Seeberger wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
2)  I'm wondering how much Gautam knows about Jim Wallis' ideas to
call them "bad".  I think a debate on the merits and demerits of
Wallis's ideas would be interesting and would edify me without my
having to darken the doors of Barnes & Noble, or add to the giant
sucking sound coming from amazon.com, aimed at my bank account.  :) 
(They don't have any of his stuff at the Half Price Books in Round
Rock today.)  Nick and Dave have been going on as if Jim Wallis was
the closest thing they've seen to the Messiah so far this year (OK,
maybe that's an exaggeration), and I've heard negative opinions of
him from others.  I'd love to see a reasoned, civil discussion on 
the
question.  Will I get my wish?
Julia

And you have been on Brin-L how long?
xponent
Invoking Sturgeons Law Maru
rob 
And the corollary would be that 10% of everything isn't crap.  At least 
in the original version.

I can always hope, can't I?  :)
Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Robert Seeberger]

Julia Thompson wrote:
> Robert Seeberger wrote:
>> Julia Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> 2)  I'm wondering how much Gautam knows about Jim Wallis' ideas to
>>> call them "bad".  I think a debate on the merits and demerits of
>>> Wallis's ideas would be interesting and would edify me without my
>>> having to darken the doors of Barnes & Noble, or add to the giant
>>> sucking sound coming from amazon.com, aimed at my bank account. 
>>> :)
>>> (They don't have any of his stuff at the Half Price Books in Round
>>> Rock today.)  Nick and Dave have been going on as if Jim Wallis 
>>> was
>>> the closest thing they've seen to the Messiah so far this year 
>>> (OK,
>>> maybe that's an exaggeration), and I've heard negative opinions of
>>> him from others.  I'd love to see a reasoned, civil discussion on
>>> the
>>> question.  Will I get my wish?
>>> Julia
>>
>>
>> And you have been on Brin-L how long?
>>
>>
>> xponent
>> Invoking Sturgeons Law Maru
>> rob
>
> And the corollary would be that 10% of everything isn't crap.  At
> least in the original version.
>
> I can always hope, can't I?  :)
>
> Julia
>
I was thinking much the same thing before I went to 
http://www.nice-tits.org/

Was I wrong for that?



xponent
Libido'R'Us Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I googled and read some of his interviews and quotes
> from the past year.
> This is not meant to be insulting Gautam, but he
> appears to hold _your_
> position on a number of issues.  Clearly, not on the
> Iraq war, but even on
> the question of pacifism and tyranny, there is a
> quote from God's Politics
> that sounds consistent with your views.
> 
> Dan M.

Haven't read the book - nothing I saw about him
suggested even vaguely it was worth my time.  Among
other things, btw, as Slate wrote convincingly, his
visio of the United States seems far less religiously
pluralistic than, say, the President's.  But given
that he opposed intervening in _Afghanistan_, I don't
see how that's possible.  He seems to be effectively a
pacifist.  In Vietnam he supported the North
Vietnamese.  I mean, at that point you're actually _on
the side of_ tyrants, so I just don't quite see how
that makes sense.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:33 PM Wednesday 4/6/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
2)  I'm wondering how much Gautam knows about Jim Wallis' ideas to
call them "bad".  I think a debate on the merits and demerits of
Wallis's ideas would be interesting and would edify me without my
having to darken the doors of Barnes & Noble, or add to the giant
sucking sound coming from amazon.com, aimed at my bank account.  :) 
(They don't have any of his stuff at the Half Price Books in Round
Rock today.)  Nick and Dave have been going on as if Jim Wallis was
the closest thing they've seen to the Messiah so far this year (OK,
maybe that's an exaggeration), and I've heard negative opinions of
him from others.  I'd love to see a reasoned, civil discussion on the
question.  Will I get my wish?
Julia
And you have been on Brin-L how long?
xponent
Invoking Sturgeons Law Maru
rob
And the corollary would be that 10% of everything isn't crap.  At least in 
the original version.

The problem is that to find the diamonds you have to examine a lot of crap.
It All Comes To Pass In The End Maru
--Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:44 PM Wednesday 4/6/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> I can always hope, can't I?  :)
>
> Julia
>
I was thinking much the same thing before I went to
http://www.nice-tits.org/
Was I wrong for that?

xponent
Libido'R'Us Maru
rob

From all I hear, finding the other type on-line is not difficult.  If you 
have trouble, you can probably ask just about any junior-high-school boy 
for help.

--Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Bottom line, you 
> denegate "rich white liberals" for no particular
> reason other than to create your 
> usual demons.

Bob, what is it about you that makes you _unable_ to
credit people who disagree with you about honest
motives?  I mean, really, this is why I'm so reluctant
to discuss things with you.  I denigrate the "rich
white liberals" who made this decision because they're
the people who, consistently, make self-flattering
decisions that (in this case) have led to hundreds of
thousands, maybe millions, of deaths.  You're a rich
white liberal.  I don't denigrate you.  But I'm not
rich, and I'm not white, and (for that matter) I'm not
even liberal.  But gee, do ya think maybe I could
honestly identify with the people who die because of
their arrogance and self-righteousness, and not the
people who make the decisions?  What, of the many
things you know about me, being the son of immigrants
from India who went to a public school where at least
a third of the students were on welfare, might
_possibly_ incline me to be more sympathetic to poor
people from the Third World dying of malaria than rich
people from the Upper East Side who decided their
deaths were preferable to listening to the scientific
evidence?  We identify with different people.  Instead
of maligning me, you might try to get outside of your
own head for 30 seconds and see that one. 
Incidentally, it's not true that the evidence on DDT
is all that new.  In the court case on the subject
conducted in the _1970s_ the judge ruled that DDT was
not a carcinogen.  The EPA banned it anyways.
> 
> By the way, Pedro looked good in his first start for
> the mets.

Yes, he looked excellent.  Let's just hope that he's
rehabbed his shoulder properly.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. 
http://personals.yahoo.com

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you saying that Warren been trying to prevent
> democracy in Iraq?

Functionally, yes.  
> 
> Are you saying that war is the only way to get rid
> of an evil dictator?  Or 
> war was the only way to get rid of this one?  Am I
> mistaken in believing that 
> in almost every other case, our policy has been not
> to go to war for that 
> reason?  Is "removing an evil dictator"
> justification for this war?

It was _one_ justification.  People who argue that it
was only WMD are editing the transcript.  WMD was one
reason for invading, but it wasn't at all the only one
- for Tony Blair, for example, the reason was clearly
overwhelmingly humanitarian.  WMD were the most
important reason for me, but not at all the only one. 
War was definitely the only way to get rid of this
one.  We tried other methods for 12 years.  Give me an
example of a totalitarian dictator overthrown without
war, for that matter.  I can't think of one - they
were all either beaten in combat (Hitler, Hussein) or
died of old age (Stalin, Mao).  We didn't go to war in
other circumstances.  We didn't in Rwanda.  That
didn't work out so well for the Rwandans.  We haven't
in the Sudan.  That's not working out so well for the
Sudanese either.  
> 
> For what it's worth, there is no major religion that
> accepts such a 
> justification.  There are two great religious
> traditions with regard to war -- 
> pacifism and "just war" theology.  The latter never
> allows for a pre-emptive 
> war.  Virtually every major religious body in the
> world (the one notable 
> exception being the Southern Baptist Association)
> urged us not to undertake 
> it, before it began, which means before we even knew
> for sure that Iraq was no 
> threat to us.

Oh, come on, Nick, I can sling "just war" theology
around too.  There are, for that matter, lots of
non-religious doctrines about the ethics of war -
starting with Michael Walzer's, for example.  I even
have one - Dan quotes it on the list every once in a
while.  First, you're wrong about the other never
allowing a pre-emptive war.  What you mean is that it
never allows a _preventive_ war.  Every military on
earth has a doctrine for pre-emptive war.  What we
fought in Iraq was a preventive, not a pre-emptive,
war.  Second, a lot of the "just war" theorizers are
just playing games, setting up just war criteria that
can never be met.  That's what your friend Wallis
does, for that matter.  Depending on whose you use,
just war theology _does_ include humanitarian war
under its precepts.  So do some of the non-religious
doctrines.  Kant, in, umm, I think On Perpetual Peace
(I'm sure Dan can quote it from memory) sets out as
one justification for intervention being when a
tyrannical government is acting inside its borders
with such unrestrained violence that its populace
cannot overthrow it on its own, for example.  That
sounds like Iraq to me.  Finally, the original
formulation of Catholic just war was drawn up
centuries ago.  Nuclear weapons weren't exactly a
pressing concern back then, and while Europeans had
already exterminated a few cities, they had to do it
retail.  We do have to rethink these ideas as
situations change, and Father Hehir doesn't seem to
have gotten around to it yet.  He probably will,
though.
> 
> Very aggressive inspections by an international
> force more like police than 
> military, indicting the leader in a world court and
> other pressure could be 
> brought to bear in such situations.  Well-developed
> policies and plans for 
> such intervention, backed by international
> agreement, would go a very long way 
> toward peace.  And so would many things that I have
> a direct part in -- 
> consumption of oil and other scarce resouces, more
> diverse voices in the 
> media, a more intelligent national discussion of
> issues and values...
> 
> Nick

Oh, come on.  I'm sure Saddam Hussein would have been
quaking in his boots at the idea of _being indicted by
the World Court_.  God forbid.  Or, heck, if you gave
up your car.  Come on, Nick, this doesn't even qualify
as an abdication of responsibility, it's not even
concrete enough for _that_.  This is exactly what I
mean - it's preening.  You can say exactly how much
more moral you are than all those nasty people who
supported the war...and evade any and all questions
about what, exactly, that opposition meant for Iraq. 
Exactly how would any of these things have toppled a
regime supported by the Mukhbarat?  We had that
country on starvation sanctions and air strikes for 12
years.  In that span of time we now know he was able
to corrupt the UN and buy off the French (one quarter
of Iraqi oil fields were contracted out to Total, the
French oil company).  I mean, I'm sure that a more
intelligent discussion of national ideas and values
would have terrified Saddam (and since I'm quite
confident that more intelligent discussion would end
up on my side of the fence on most issues, I'm all in
favor of it) b

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Doug Pensinger]

Gautam wrote:
By the way, Pedro looked good in his first start for
the mets.
Yes, he looked excellent.  Let's just hope that he's
rehabbed his shoulder properly.
Hey, hey, hey, how about that Kirk Saarloos one hitting your Orioles 
tonight!

Thank goodness for baseball season. Go A's!
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)



>
> Haven't read the book - nothing I saw about him
> suggested even vaguely it was worth my time.

I didn't read the book, I merely read some interviews and quotes from the
book in places like the Houston Chronicle online.  The Chronicle article
was balanced enough to sound like a fairly reasonable commentary...liked
and disliked things about the book but thought it was a worthwhile read. He
criticized the "welfare industry" for maintaing people in poverty instead
of fighting poverty...that sounds a lot like something I've heard from you.
I thought that his criticism of the Democratic party was very close to
yours.  In particular his criticism that the Democrats are/were so out of
touch with religious people that they forced them into the Republican camp
seems very close to what you've written. He even was quoted as criticizing
the anti-war movement for not taking evil and tyranny seriously enough to
be fully authentic.

Among
> other things, btw, as Slate wrote convincingly, his
> visio of the United States seems far less religiously
> pluralistic than, say, the President's.  But given
> that he opposed intervening in _Afghanistan_, I don't
> see how that's possible.  He seems to be effectively a
> pacifist.

He seems to have a very limited view of the just war theory, I'll agree
with that.  But, he seems to be with you in criticizing "the welfare
industry" as patronizing and contributing to poverty.  His criticism of the
Democratic party often seems to match yours. His "universal support of
life" from being anti-abortion to favoring working for the poor is not
identical to you, but it is quite close to the Catholic church.

>In Vietnam he supported the North
> Vietnamese.  I mean, at that point you're actually _on
> the side of_ tyrants, so I just don't quite see how
> that makes sense.

Since he now criticizes the anti-war movement for not being strong enough
in opposing tyrants, it would make sense for him to admit his own past sins
in this regard.  I haven't seen such an admission...but it would be
interesting to see if that just didn't come up or if he wasn't repentant
and evaded the question.  Nick might be able to tell us if he used his own
past mistakes to illustrate points here during their limited conversation.

For me the book is out on him.  I think at a minimum, I would say he got
some things right in what he is saying now.  I would also agree that he got
some things horridly wrong in the past.  I think that my view of him as
either someone I could reasonably differ with or someone who is simply
posturing would depend on whether he accepts as valid criticisms like yours
of his own unwillingness to criticize anti-American tyrannies.  If so, then
he might be more reasonable than you think.  If not, you would have to at
least allow that he is right on the topics he agrees with you on, or
quickly change your viewpoint. :-)

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Julia Thompson]

Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

By the way, Pedro looked good in his first start for
the mets.

Yes, he looked excellent.  Let's just hope that he's
rehabbed his shoulder properly.
Just for the record, I'm not happy about this.
I hate the Mets.
Nothing personal, just the 1986 World Series
Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, hey, hey, how about that Kirk Saarloos one
> hitting your Orioles 
> tonight!
> 
> Thank goodness for baseball season. Go A's!
> 
> -- 
> Doug

Gee, thanks Doug (:-)), I didn't know that until I
read it on list :-(  This is my first day reading the
list in weeks - I'm so overloaded with work this is
kind of my despairing gesture at ever getting it
finished...

I like to think that I take sporting success with me
wherever I go (it's a sort of karmic balancing for my
own lack of athletic talent, I think).  When I was
growing up and the only team I cared about was the
Redskins - the glory days of three Superbowls.  Then I
fell in love with baseball - and the Orioles started
to win.  I moved to Boston...and the Patriots started
to win.  I moved back to Boston...and the Red Sox
_and_ the Pats.  Naturally, I take all the credit for
this. :-)  Tom Brady should, say, give me at least a
1% cut of his groupies out of gratitude - I'd be happy
to take one for the team on his behalf :-)

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Robert Seeberger]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> At 09:44 PM Wednesday 4/6/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>> Julia Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>> I can always hope, can't I?  :)
>>>
>>> Julia
>>>
>> I was thinking much the same thing before I went to
>> http://www.nice-tits.org/
>>
>> Was I wrong for that?
>> 
>>
>>
>> xponent
>> Libido'R'Us Maru
>> rob
>
>
>
> From all I hear, finding the other type on-line is not difficult. 
> If
> you have trouble, you can probably ask just about any
> junior-high-school boy for help.
>
>

TRAAVVIIIS



xponent
Starting Crap Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Doug Pensinger]

Gautam wrote:
Gee, thanks Doug (:-)), I didn't know that until I
read it on list :-(  This is my first day reading the
list in weeks - I'm so overloaded with work this is
kind of my despairing gesture at ever getting it
finished...
Yea, I'm busy too, but I'm easily distracted.  Especially when I can pull 
a game cast up on the computer while I'm working (Oh look, Soriano just 
homered in the top of the twelfth.)
I like to think that I take sporting success with me
wherever I go (it's a sort of karmic balancing for my
own lack of athletic talent, I think).  When I was
growing up and the only team I cared about was the
Redskins - the glory days of three Superbowls.  Then I
fell in love with baseball - and the Orioles started
to win.  I moved to Boston...and the Patriots started
to win.  I moved back to Boston...and the Red Sox
_and_ the Pats.  Naturally, I take all the credit for
this. :-)  Tom Brady should, say, give me at least a
1% cut of his groupies out of gratitude - I'd be happy
to take one for the team on his behalf :-)
 He seems like an accommodating guy...
I was pretty happy with 5 rings for the 49ers and a World Series for the 
A's through the '80s and '90s but we've fallen on hard times the last 
decade or so.  Billy Beane building great teams year after year helps alot 
though.

Well, Texas wins, LAA loose.  We're tied for first with 160 to go. 8^)
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 6, 2005, at 1:48 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Because DDT thins birds' egg shells. The biggest reason bald eagles 
are
endangered is DDT -- it thinned the birds' shells so drastically that
many embryos never survived to full development.

Is that a sufficient reason?
It depends on priorities.  We already eliminated malaria in the US.  
Using
DDT, one can greatly reduce the risks of brain damage and death in 
Africa.
See, this is a good example of missing communications. I thought the 
topic had to do with DDT usage in the States, not worldwide. I'm 
inclined to agree that mosquito/malaria abatement is *crucial* to 
health in the world, and from that perspective the use of DDT in some 
places, particularly developing nations, can be justifiable.

Overuse is a problem, but so is disease. If there's a way to strike a 
reasonable balance between DDT usage and broader environmental 
concerns, I'm for it.

A few years back there was some PBS special or other on the usage of 
GMOs to improve crop yields in parts of the world that desperately need 
it. This was another thing opposed by environmental activists, most of 
whom didn't really seem to know what they were really protesting or 
what the fallout might be. Result? Research was stopped. That's really 
crappy.

This is fascinating, because it's the rich white conservatives *now*
that are ignoring the status of poor brown people, such as those in 
the
Sudan,
Well, my Zambian daughter Neli said she hated to admit it but Bush 
pushed
more than anyone else in power in the world to do something about it.  
Much
beyond what was done, the only possibility was an even more unpopular
unilateral war against Arabs.  The US was regularly thwarted at the UN 
when
they tried to push for stronger actions.
The other side of that is that if the US had not been so engaged in 
Iraq, we might have had some extra troops to spare to stop the 
slaughter, UN be damned.

or the thousands dead in Iraq because of a misbegotten war  pressed
electively on verified-false data.
Why are you so sure that Bush does not believe in the vision he 
proclaims.
From my perspective it's because the administration's focus kept 
changing. Once the "slam dunk" of WMDs was disproved, there were 
fallback stories. When the multiple excuses for the Iraqi invasion were 
first proposed, I saw them -- possibly cynically -- as a safety net. I 
remember thinking, if the WMD thing doesn't pan out, they'll have these 
other convenient ready-made excuses.

There are other examples of ethically questionable -- at best -- 
behavior from the current administration. And when GWB goes from 
wanting bin Laden dead or alive to saying he doesn't even really think 
about where he might be any more, it's hard for me to believe his 
commitment to anything else he claims to be true to.

I just don't think there's a lot of credibility in the administration 
in general. It's not just GWB -- it's apparently endemic to the 
administration.

Of the public stands on this,  Tom Friedman's comes closest to mine,
although we weighed the factors differently and came to different
conclusions. What's amazing to me now is how well things are going,
considering the fact that we might not have been able to bungle things
worse if we tried.
I'm inclined to agree with that as well. If Iraq becomes democratic, 
the US won't be justified in taking any credit for it.

I guess what really struck me was how Bush was criticized for going 
the UN
route in Sudan and not going it in Iraq.  On a practical basis, I 
could see
the criticism...but it seemed to me that your argument wasn't a nuts 
and
bolts argument about the details of each, but an argument that you put
forth as one of basic principals.
Fair enough. Hopefully I've elucidated my reasoning enough to let you 
see it's not as arbitrary as one might suppose.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 6, 2005, at 4:48 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because DDT thins birds' egg shells. The biggest
reason bald eagles are
endangered is DDT -- it thinned the birds' shells so
drastically that
many embryos never survived to full development.
Is that a sufficient reason?
Well, first, no, it's not a sufficient reason.  Not at
all.  But, second, it's _not even true_.  Bald eagles
_aren't_ endangered.


Seems it still is endangered.
They're actually a _pest_ in
parts of Alaska, there are so many of them.
There's a lot more habitat in North America than Alaska.
DDT used
for malarial prevention - indoor spraying, daubing on
the walls of homes, and DDT -implanted mosquito nets -
doesn't even get out into the environment, much less
pose a threat.
And it's not relevant outside the US to bald eagles. As I mentioned to 
Dan I wasn't aware we were discussing *worldwide* DDT bans; I thought 
the discussion was about the US only.

Finally, Warren, as usual you rant about Iraq.
Two sentences doth not a rant make.
Have
you been paying attention to what's happening over
there?  You know, the successful election, the
formation of a government with a Kurdish President,
things like that.
That's nice. Does it balance the thousands of dead civilians or the 
continuing insurgency?

If Iraq does end up as a stable
democracy - and the odds of that are higher than they
have ever been in all of Iraqi history - are you going
to come back and admit that those evil
neoconservatives destroyed one of the vilest
governments on earth and replaced it with something
pretty good _while you did everything you could to
stop it from happening_?
You mean, if I was wrong for the right reasons while they were right 
for the wrong reasons? Interesting question.

Who, in that equation, will
have been looking out for poor, brown people who are
far away?
Interesting you bring up, elsewhere, that you're not rich white or 
liberal. Do remember that it was partly the efforts of rich white 
liberals (as well as activist judges) that put an end to slavery here, 
and that got the civil rights movement further along. It could be 
argued that the education you're getting now wouldn't have been 
possible but for the efforts of various rich white liberals who were 
interested in opening the halls of learning to *every* extraordinarily 
worthy student. Or are you going to contend that *their* efforts were 
also little more than preening?

It seems the "rich white liberal" bludgeon can beat both directions.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Martin Lewis]

On Apr 6, 2005 11:25 PM, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > > > >  Except, of course, that's not true.
> > > > >
> > > > >  http://www.who.int/malaria/vectorcontrol.html
> > > > >
> > > > >  Nice smear though.
> > >
> > > Oh, I just found an interesting long article on it
> > >
> > > http://www.cis.org.au/policy/Spring01/polspr01-1.pdf
> >
> >  An article by Roger Bate of the American Enterprise Institute. Great.
> 
> OK, you don't like his political position.

 My point was that I complained about DDT being used as a tool to
smear environmentalists and as a counterexample you linked to someone
who is paid to smear environmentalists.

>  Can you find falsehoods.  Would
> you accept
> 
> http://www.fightingmalaria.org/research.php?ID=20&month=
> http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/africa/2003/0529malaria.htm
> 
> The first is an African group, and the second is the Christian Science
> Monitor.  In particular, we should note the lack of international funding
> for DDT.  Do you think this is unconnected with the political power of the
> environmental movement?

 There's certainly nothing in the articles to suggest that. In fact
they support my view: 22 countries use DDT to fight malaria, the World
Health Organisation endorses its use, not all Africans agree that the
use of DDT is the best option.

 Martin
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Martin Lewis]

On Apr 7, 2005 7:23 AM, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> And it's not relevant outside the US to bald eagles. As I mentioned to
> Dan I wasn't aware we were discussing *worldwide* DDT bans;

 A reasonable assumption since there is no worldwide ban.

 Martin
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 6, 2005, at 10:30 AM, I wrote:
Also, since I don't have to weigh a given set of beliefs against my 
own to see if they agree -- and are therefore "true" -- I'm free to 
see validity in many different religious ideas. Where faith speaks of 
gods I can ignore it; where faith speaks of human values, I can 
cherish it.
Here's my countertake: Bullshit, bullshit and, most especially, 
bullshit. Of the purest ray serene. We are talking bullshit prismed 
through a laser of remarkable fidelity. Bullshit so pure that it cannot 
harmonize even fractionally with other kinds of bullshit. Bullshit so 
astonishingly non-bullshit in its depth that if a universe were spawned 
of it tomorrow, there would be no quantum uncertainty; even on the 
quark level we'd be dealing with nothing but bullshit.

I can't believe I got away with that graf on this list!
What unutterable arrogance. Oh, I'm rational. Yes, what I think makes 
sense. Obviously it does. After all it's utterly lucid to me. What 
better measure of rationality is there? This is my Bull of Warrenal 
Infallibility.

Of course I filter everything. Everything. I read opinions not to 
strengthen my arguments from a "rational" perspective -- I read them to 
see if they agree with what I already believe. If they do, well hey, I 
credit the author with his/her insight and acuity. This is a good 
opinion! It's powerful, lucid and direct. What a wonderful clarity of 
understanding. Couldn't have expressed it better myself. And cetera.

And of course when I read something by someone who doesn't agree with 
me -- well. Spotty thinking, weak rationalizations, just-so solipsism, 
arrogance, intellectual elitism, pandering to The Masses, and cetera.

The graf I quoted above is a scintillating example of intellectual 
arrogance, of blinkered non-reasoning, so true that I'd hope it could 
be featured in a text on logic just to show how self-deluded the 
"rationalists" can be.

Foma, to borrow from Vonnegut. It's all a pack of foma. Trust me? Why? 
I can't even trust myself.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Martin Lewis]

On Apr 7, 2005 12:17 AM, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> And, of course, I have _lots_ of family whose life is
> at risk from this decision, so it's kind of important
> to me as well.

 You might like to read this paper by VP Sharma about the ineffectiveness of 
the use of DDT in India then:

 http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec102003/1532.pdf

  It's not an issue that I've looked at
> superficially - the evidence on the issue, so far as I
> can tell, is quite overwhelming.  In fact, the best
> use of DDT for malaria prevention is as a paste on the
> walls of homes (where it can have no environmental
> effects) - and the environmental movement has lobbied
> very heavily against that, and convinced western
> governments not to fund even that use of DDT, as well
> as the use of DDT-implanted anti-mosquito netting (DDT
> has a secondary effect as an irritant which mosquitos
> don't seem to evolve a resistance to, which makes it
> very effective when used in doors).
> 
> Finally, no one in favor of DDT usage has an agenda on
> this issue, so far as I can tell.

 Of course they do. It's the same agenda you have: to smear environmentalists. 
This is the whole reason places like the American Enterprise Institute, Tech 
Central Station, Junk Science, etc constantly raise the issue - they are paid 
to attack environmentalists. The lie that there is a ban on DDT use for 
malarial vector control is just one weapon in their arsenal. It may not be 
related directly to a specific industry like the lies they peddle about global 
warming and second hand smoke and so on but the baseless claim that 
environmentalists have killed 50 million Africans is too good to pass up.

>  No one makes any
> money off DDT - it's an old chemical, and industry has
> generally been in favor of replacing it with other,
> more profitable, chemicals.  You're generally in favor
> of using DDT if you think using it is a good idea.
> But since some people would rather attack people who
> disagree with them than look at the evidence (after
> all, no one important is dying, right?)

 And once again a gratuitous smear.

> it's pretty
> clear how this one comes out.  Of course, if those
> people had ever seen what a case of malaria looks
> like, they might have a slightly different view.

 Martin
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Martin Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)


> > The first is an African group, and the second is the Christian Science
> > Monitor.  In particular, we should note the lack of international
funding
> > for DDT.  Do you think this is unconnected with the political power of
the
> > environmental movement?
>
>  There's certainly nothing in the articles to suggest that.


Despite this success, the international community has been slow to embrace
DDT and remains largely unwilling to fund DDT spraying programs.
Officially, the policy of the UN is that DDT is effective and should be
used until it can be replaced with less harmful chemicals. But in practice,
the chemical is hardly mentioned and almost never funded (DDT was not
mentioned in Tuesday's US bill). Instead, the UN advocates the use of
insecticide-treated bed nets, which most malaria experts say are far less
effective.

In the first two rounds of the Global Fund aid distribution, for example,
not a single country received money for DDT spraying, although several
projects to distribute insecticide-treated nets were approved. The US has
not yet said how their new money will be spent, but few expect DDT spraying
to be funded. One of only 22 countries using DDT Today, South Africa is one
of only 22 countries around the world still using DDT for malaria control
and only one of eight African countries that have officially requested
permission from the United Nations to use the chemical for mosquito
control. DDT advocates say far more would probably return to spraying if
the international community supported them in doing so. "A lot of [donors]
will say their official policy is that DDT can be used as a malaria
solution, but they don't fund it," says Tren. "But how bad does it have to
get before it's an emergency?"


Is your position that the environmental movement's arguements against DDT
have nothing to do with this?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:08:41 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

> It can be.  Bush I and Clinton tried other means for ~12 years.  I 
> think, after that time, it was safe to say that Hussian wasn't 
> losing his grip on the country and wouldn't without an invasion.

Safe to say?  Meaning it's not debatable?  Do you think that international 
pressure could have been increased -- something between what we were doing and 
going to war?

> Again, let me state that I was opposed to going in because I didn't think
> we were prepared to handle the peace afterwards.  We might suceed in 
> spite of ourselves...but if we do or not, the question with regards 
> to Iraq has always been a practical one to me.  The practical 
> questions need to be answered with ethics in mind, but I see nothing 
> inherently wrong in overturning Hussein with military power. 

Even though Iraq neither attacked us nor posed a credible threat?  I don't see 
any room for such an action under any major religion's theology.

> Well, let's look at three other cases

I don't mean to disrespect your focus on the past, but I think we need a 
vision for the future that is different from the past.  None of our solutions 
to this sort of thing has worked particularly well.  Let's have an 
international discussion that develops approaches to conflict resolution that 
are as advanced as our weapons systems!

The questions I posed above are critical to making a moral decision, I believe 
-- did the nation in question attack us? Does it pose an imminent threat.  If 
the answer to both is no, can war be justified?

If we're fighting terrorists, rather than nations, how can war be an solution 
at all?

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Robert J. Chassell]

Dan Minette wrote

I guess what really struck me was how Bush was criticized for
going the UN route in Sudan and not going it in Iraq. ...

Likely Bush figured that the US Army is stretched enough in Iraq that
it makes little sense to offend China and India, both of which have
investments in Sudan.

While the current US Administration thinks of China as an enemy, it is
trying to persuade India to side with the US, rather than make an
alliance with its `strategic competitor'.

While there is *thought* to be oil in the Darfur region (according to
a Sudanese I talked with on Easter; he figures we are seeing a
`resource war), there is *known* to be oil in the Middle East and
Central Asia.

>From a political point of view, there are only three ways to deal with
energy shortages:  cut use domestically, reduce foreigners use of it,
or advance technologically, so as to provide alternatives.  

The Bush Administration is against or does not concern itself with
long term technological development (that is what being neutral about
or favoring `intelligent design' means economically over the long
term).  Secondly, the Bush Administration can hinder US energy use
only so much.  When the US domestic price of gasoline goes above $5 or
$10 per gallon (1.30 - 2.60 US dollars per liter) previously pro-Bush
voters are likely to figure he goofed and shift their political
support.

Hence, the Bush Administration must focus its attention on resource
wars with high expected payoffs to the US.

As far as I can see, the Sudan is expected to have less oil and
natural gas than the Middle East and Central Asia.  So the US will
focus on them (and on western Africa).

>From a Bush administration point of view, it is fine if the UN manages
to provide Sudanese oil to all, including the US, and manages to
ensure that locals get some of the revenue.  But if the UN fails, that
means that China and India get a bit of oil that the US is not
expecting to get anyhow, and that the US has the opportunity to point
out again not only that the UN is unrepresentative of people and
money, but is also incompetent.  

(Currently, the UN is representative of history:  the five main
`munitioning areas' of WWII have vetoes in the Security Council.  And
it is representative of sovereignty: each country has one vote.  The
UN lacks a `house' based on population, like the European parliament,
and it lacks one based on monies paid.  While no contemporary
government has a legislative branch based on monies paid officially,
such a branch might help settle disputes peacefully as entities'
power, and ability or willingness to pay, changes over the
generations.)

-- 
Robert J. Chassell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Robert J. Chassell]

Gautam Mukunda asked

... why else prevent the use of DDT, for example?

I suspect the major reason is that no national politician in the US,
whether Democrat or Republican, wanted to say that he had voted for
the extinction of a national symbol.  (The bald eagle is a US national
symbol.  DDT was thinning its eggs, so many cracked.  It was becoming
extinct.)

Also, farmers were worried that their crops would not get pollinated
inexpensively and big, long term investors were worried that the kinds
of employees they wanted for their `high tech' green field sites would
be less likely to move to them if they could not listen to birds.  (I
do not know the reality of either worry in the mid-1960, only that
some worried.)

As for whether `rich white liberals' have managed to fool the rulers
of African countries over the past 30 years into thinking that they
should not spend money on DDT for people who are politically weaker --
I am inclined to think that the rulers are as smart as anyone and have
not been fooled.

-- 
Robert J. Chassell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:33:16 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
> In Vietnam he supported the North
> Vietnamese.  I mean, at that point you're actually _on
> the side of_ tyrants, so I just don't quite see how
> that makes sense.

Cite, please!  That's more than a little bit outrageous.  

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
> --- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you saying that Warren been trying to prevent
> > democracy in Iraq?
> 
> Functionally, yes.  

What does that mean?

> Oh, come on, Nick, I can sling "just war" theology
> around too.  

Are you saying that I'm not actually thinking, I'm just tossing words around?

> What you mean is that it
> never allows a _preventive_ war.  

No, I mean what I wrote.  War is only justifiable after a direct attack or 
imminent threat -- that is just war theory in short.

> Every military on
> earth has a doctrine for pre-emptive war.  

Are you saying that military doctrine trumps religion?  If we're going to put 
the military in charge of ethics, shall we put the churches in charge of 
defense?  Interesting idea.

> What we
> fought in Iraq was a preventive, not a pre-emptive,
> war.  Second, a lot of the "just war" theorizers are
> just playing games, setting up just war criteria that
> can never be met.  

What do you mean by "just playing games?"  They're like children, not serious 
thinkers?  Who are the serious thinkers about war and peace?

> mean - it's preening.  You can say exactly how much
> more moral you are than all those nasty people who
> supported the war...and evade any and all questions
> about what, exactly, that opposition meant for Iraq. 

Perhaps you'd like to know what I really was saying?  It was not about my 
morality, it was about my desire to develop better ways to deal with 
international conflict, which is based in my hope and faith that the world can 
have fewer wars in the future.  I'm curious if you have any such hope.  My 
morality was so flawed that I yielded to the fear of nuclear attack from Iraq 
and spoke in favor of this war.

I wasn't saying that anybody has all the answers, I was saying that the 
international community can develop better ways, again based in hope and 
faith.

I wasn't saying that every conflict can be resolved withot war, but peace 
sometimes means living with conflict rather than removing it by force.  Peace 
is not the absence of conflict.

> the people being dropped feet-first into shredding machines.

Perhaps you forget that this sort of thing has touched me rather directly.

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)


> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:08:41 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
>
> > It can be.  Bush I and Clinton tried other means for ~12 years.  I
> > think, after that time, it was safe to say that Hussian wasn't
> > losing his grip on the country and wouldn't without an invasion.
>
> Safe to say?  Meaning it's not debatable?

If you want to debate it, I'd be interested in why you would think there
was a significant liklyhood he would fall without intervention.  In
particular, I'd be interested in seeing what steps that were stronger than
the sactions we imposed, but not hurtful to the people of Iraq could be
imposed.  But, given the facts, I think it would be much more reasonable to
count on his regime continuing than falling.

>Do you think that international
> pressure could have been increased -- something between what we were
doing and
> going to war?

Theoretically, yes.  Practically, no.  There were, on paper, very stiff
sanctions in place.  We could have revoked oil for food, since the UN was
corrupted by Hussain and gave a lot of money for food.  But, since a
Security council member with a veto, France, was given lucrative future
contracts by Hussein, it's hard to imagine France both accepting the
contracts and insuring that they would never profit.  In short, I think we
could continue to contain Hussain, but that there were no non-invasive
options that had a reasonable chance of toppling him.  After 11 years of
failure in that regard, I think it is fair to ask for a specific plan and
why it would have had a good chance to suceed where the previous sanctions
have failed.


> Even though Iraq neither attacked us nor posed a credible threat?  I
don't see
> any room for such an action under any major religion's theology.
>
> > Well, let's look at three other cases
>
> I don't mean to disrespect your focus on the past, but I think we need a
> vision for the future that is different from the past.  None of our
solutions
> to this sort of thing has worked particularly well.

Nothing has worked ideally.  But, things have gotten better.  Life is
better in E. Germany and most of Eastern Europe after the Cold War was won
by the US.  Life in the Balkins is better after we acted. We stopped
ongoing genocide.  I consider that a good thing.  Humans beings cannot
attain perfection.  That doesn't mean we should refer things to committee
forever (as Presbyterians tend to do.)  There are times that we need to
act, as imperfect as we are.  I agree with the Catholic rite of contrition
where we confess for "that which we have done and that which we have failed
to do."  Both are sins.

> Let's have an
> international discussion that develops approaches to conflict resolution
that
> are as advanced as our weapons systems!

We can develop scientific techniques that allows us to manipulate inatimate
objects (within bounds of course) to do things we want.  Thus, we can use
physics and chemistry, engineering and systems design to come up with very
deadly weapons.  But there is no evidence that using just the right
technique on potential perpetrators will stop violence.  The best is oft
the enemy of the good.  I do not see the morality in refusing to accept the
consequences of one's decision to not act, as well as the consequences of
action.  We have at least some responsibility for the ongoing death in the
Sudan because stopping it is in our power.  Neli is furious with the UN for
not stopping it.

No system that works will be dependant on the lack of evil actions.  It
needs to work despite selfishness, hate, and greed.  The UN has not
performed well in this area over the past 25 years.  Indeed, the track
record of the US, although it is certainly blemished, is significantly
superior to that of the UN.

> The questions I posed above are critical to making a moral decision, I
believe
> -- did the nation in question attack us? Does it pose an imminent threat.
If
> the answer to both is no, can war be justified?

Sure.  Otherwise, it was immoral to act to stop the genocide in Rwanda.
The Dutch would have been morally oblidged to step aside to permit the
genocide in Serbicida.  IIRC, the ultimate justification for the use of
force by Augustine was defence of the innocent, not self defence.  While
I'm on just war, let me give you a paraphrase from Tommy Acquinis on just
war:

it's at:

http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html

A just cause is required to wage war. St. Thomas considers such a cause to
be "that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it
on account of some fault."(8) Finally St. Thom

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 7, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you saying that Warren been trying to prevent
democracy in Iraq?
Functionally, yes.
What does that mean?
I think it means "He who is not with us is against us." But it seems 
Gautam is more comfortable discussing with others what my intentions 
are than he is dealing with my comments directly, so if you get an 
answer from him I'll be interestedly reading it as well.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:09:46 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

> > > It can be.  Bush I and Clinton tried other means for ~12 years.  I
> > > think, after that time, it was safe to say that Hussian wasn't
> > > losing his grip on the country and wouldn't without an invasion.
> >
> > Safe to say?  Meaning it's not debatable?
> 
> If you want to debate it, I'd be interested in why you would think there
> was a significant liklyhood he would fall without intervention.  

I wrote "invasion" and you've just written "intervention."  Are we talking 
about the same thing?

> In
> particular, I'd be interested in seeing what steps that were 
> stronger than the sactions we imposed, but not hurtful to the people 
> of Iraq could be imposed.  But, given the facts, I think it would be 
> much more reasonable to count on his regime continuing than falling.

If you believe this was a war of last resort, that there was no hope of 
removing him from power without an invasion, then we disagree.  I was asking 
if that is your firm belief or not.

> After 11 years of failure in that regard, I think 
> it is fair to ask for a specific plan and why it would have had a 
> good chance to suceed where the previous sanctions have failed.

How about putting far more force behind inspections?  A force that operates 
more like a police action, in which collateral damage is largely unacceptable?

> Nothing has worked ideally.  But, things have gotten better.  Life is
> better in E. Germany and most of Eastern Europe after the Cold War 
> was won by the US.  Life in the Balkins is better after we acted. 

I hear this as that the end justified the means -- you're describing the 
outcomes, not how we got there.  Is that what you're saying?

> But there is no evidence that 
> using just the right technique on potential perpetrators will stop 
> violence.  

I believe that humanity in modern times has been much better at avoiding war 
than it has been throughout most of history.  Is there some reason not to hope 
for that progress to continue?  Or do you disagree with my premise?

> The best is oft the enemy of the good.  I do not see the 
> morality in refusing to accept the consequences of one's decision to 
> not act, as well as the consequences of action.  

Who are you talking about?  I hear a new issue here.

> > The questions I posed above are critical to making a moral decision, I
> believe
> > -- did the nation in question attack us? Does it pose an imminent threat.
> If
> > the answer to both is no, can war be justified?
> 
> Sure.  Otherwise, it was immoral to act to stop the genocide in Rwanda.

To what action are you referring?  I don't recall that we declared war on 
Rwanda at any point.  We eventually intervened in an internal war, didn't we?

> The Dutch would have been morally oblidged to step aside to permit
> the genocide in Serbicida.  

Reductio ad absurdum.  Police actions are not war.

> This would clearly allow wars to defend the lives and liberty of others.

Yes, and it begs rather large questions of the means of war and circumstances 
under which such an undertaking is moral.  Otherwise, couldn't one justify 
nuclear weapons to stop a litterbug?

> What we are fighting is a complicated system, if you were.  If we succeed
> in helping the people of Iraq establish a decently representative
> government which is only moderately corrupt, it will change the basic
> equation of terror in the Mid-East.  

Ends justifying the means again, it sounds to me..>?  And that's a big "if."  
I find it hard to believe there can be peace in Iraq as long as the United 
States is in charge there.  Is the enormity of the resentment not obvious?

I believe that working toward social and economic justice would be an 
enormously effective counter-recruiting effort.  Reducing poverty and 
oppression will make it very hard for the fanatics to find anyone to sign up 
to be terrorists.  We seem to be accomplishing the opposite these days.

> Success would be good for the US, but it would also 
> improve the lives of millions in the Mid-Eastwho are our 
> brothers and sisters.  Helping them can't be intrinsically immoral.

Is that a fair statement without factoring in the costs?  Aren't you arguing 
from your conclusion by saying that we are helping?  It's a tautology --  
helping is good, there for helping is not bad.  Well, what if we're not 
helping?

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[maru]

Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 5, 2005, at 12:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
This is one of the problems with most of the modern interpretations of
the Gospels. Where Iasus was being metaphorical, he is taken literally;
and where he was being literal, he is taken metaphorically.

I attended a seminar by Marcus Borg
(http://www.united.edu/portrait/borg.shtml) on Friday, a Jesus Seminar
fellow and prominent defender of the faith against Biblical literalism.
He described two forms of Christianity: an earlier "belief-based" 
paradigm
and an emerging "transformational paradigm." The interpretations you
rightly criticize above are the product of the former paradigm. The
latter may well be the antidote to it.

I sure hope there is an antidote. American Christianity is rapidly 
beginning to resemble Middle East Islam. Both in the sense of 
insistence on hardline radical fundamentalism steeped in narrow 
interpretations of marginally-relevant texts; and in the sense of 
trying to turn our government into a theocracy.

...
'marginally-relevant texts'?
An example please; So far I've only seen various perversions of the Bible
(Unless you count Mel Gibson using the ravings of a delirious German nun
in his /Passion/.).
~Maru
I could say 'don't be such a hadith-hatah' but that's just a silly pun
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 7, 2005, at 2:50 PM, maru wrote:
I sure hope there is an antidote. American Christianity is rapidly 
beginning to resemble Middle East Islam. Both in the sense of 
insistence on hardline radical fundamentalism steeped in narrow 
interpretations of marginally-relevant texts; and in the sense of 
trying to turn our government into a theocracy.

...
'marginally-relevant texts'?
An example please; So far I've only seen various perversions of the 
Bible
(Unless you count Mel Gibson using the ravings of a delirious German 
nun
in his /Passion/.).
Perversions of the Bible don't affect its relevance as source material 
for wisdom. There's wisdom to be found in it, just as the Bhagavad 
Gita, the Dhammapada and the Koran contain wisdom.

The *marginal* relevance to which I referred is, in my mind, the way 
that Biblical myths have been used to assert the nature of reality. 
Six-day creation, Intelligent Design, and the Noachian deluge being the 
cause of the Grand Canyon, for instance.

(BTW, if the deluge really happened, how does this explain the 
existence of Meteor Crater, which is +10,000 years old? Shouldn't the 
flood have filled it in with sediment? Wonder what ICS has to say about 
that...)

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Gautam
> Mukunda wrote
> > --- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Are you saying that Warren been trying to
> prevent
> > > democracy in Iraq?
> > 
> > Functionally, yes.  
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
It means that there wasn't a third option between
going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in
power.  It didn't exist.  No one proposed one that was
even vaguely plausible.  You could choose one or the
other.

> > What you mean is that it
> > never allows a _preventive_ war.  
> 
> No, I mean what I wrote.  War is only justifiable
> after a direct attack or 
> imminent threat -- that is just war theory in short.

Well, first, that's not actually what just war theory
says.  Thomas Aquinas added two reasons to Augustine's
just reasons for going to war: "either the furthering
of some good or an avoidance of some evil."  That from
Brother John Raymond's _The Just War Theory_.  Second,
you don't actually mean what you wrote, because you're
not using the words correctly.  Pre-emptive war is
what you do in the face of an "imminent threat". 
Preventive war is what you fight when the threat is
not imminent.  We didn't fight a pre-emptive war in
Iraq - if we did, while a lot of people would be
opposed to it because they're opposed to the US ever
defending itself, they would not be serious people.  A
good way to think about it is The Six Day War was a
_pre-emptive_ war.  The Israelis fired the first
shots, but only because they knew they were going to
be attacked and decided (correctly) to strike first.
> 
> > Every military on
> > earth has a doctrine for pre-emptive war.  
> 
> Are you saying that military doctrine trumps
> religion?  If we're going to put 
> the military in charge of ethics, shall we put the
> churches in charge of 
> defense?  Interesting idea.

No, I'm saying that you should know what words mean
when you use them.

> What do you mean by "just playing games?"  They're
> like children, not serious 
> thinkers?  Who are the serious thinkers about war
> and peace?

Living ones?  Well, if you're just talking about
international ethics, you could list: Michael Walzer,
Stanley Hoffmann, Brian Hehir, Pierre Hassner, Michael
Ignatieff, that guy at West Point whose name escapes
me at the moment, and that just for starters...But
serious thinkers on war and peace, well, then you'd
include Sam Huntington, Stephen Rosen, Steve Van
Evera, Robert Kagan, Robert Kaplan, Donald Kagan,
Barry Posen, Robert Jervis, Jack Snyder, Marc
Trachtenberg - and that's just the people who come to
mind right away.  In that list the people came down on
all different sides of this issue - I don't even know
where some of them did, actually.  But I don't think
any of them thought a World Court indictment would be
all that useful in removing Hussein.

> Perhaps you'd like to know what I really was saying?
>  It was not about my 
> morality, it was about my desire to develop better
> ways to deal with 
> international conflict, which is based in my hope
> and faith that the world can 
> have fewer wars in the future.  I'm curious if you
> have any such hope.  My 
> morality was so flawed that I yielded to the fear of
> nuclear attack from Iraq 
> and spoke in favor of this war.

Well, I think I have a few ideas on how to get to a
world with fewer wars.  They mainly involve spreading
democracy to places like Iraq.  Hmmm.  They involve,
also, the willingness to use force when necessary,
first, but, even more importantly than that, the
willingness to make choices, not pretend that they
don't have to be made.  The _first task_ of the
statesman is to make choices.  The worst leaders in
history (and they're not really worthy of the term)
are the ones who pretended that there were no
decisions to be made or costs to be paid.

> > the people being dropped feet-first into shredding
> machines.
> 
> Perhaps you forget that this sort of thing has
> touched me rather directly.

Well, I don't know.  It doesn't seem to stop you from
attacking the people who stopped it.  If you were
saying, Nick, I understand these are the humanitarian
costs of having failed to go to war, I would respect
that.  That's what Dan does.  I would respect a
genuine pacifist, someone who really believed that
violence was never justified.  I would respect someone
who really believed that international law was the
most important thing.  I have no respect at all for
constant condemnations of the morality of your
political opponents, then hiding behind vague calls
for "more intelligent dialogue" whenever anyone
challenges you to say something that has _meaning_,
instead of just being lots of jargon that doesn't seem
to go anywhere.
> 
> Nick

Gautam

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Yahoo! Messenger 
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. 
http://w

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[maru]

Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 7, 2005, at 2:50 PM, maru wrote:
'marginally-relevant texts'?
An example please; So far I've only seen various perversions of the 
Bible
(Unless you count Mel Gibson using the ravings of a delirious German nun
in his /Passion/.).

Perversions of the Bible don't affect its relevance as source material 
for wisdom. There's wisdom to be found in it, just as the Bhagavad 
Gita, the Dhammapada and the Koran contain wisdom.

The *marginal* relevance to which I referred is, in my mind, the way 
that Biblical myths have been used to assert the nature of reality. 
Six-day creation, Intelligent Design, and the Noachian deluge being 
the cause of the Grand Canyon, for instance.

(BTW, if the deluge really happened, how does this explain the 
existence of Meteor Crater, which is +10,000 years old? Shouldn't the 
flood have filled it in with sediment? Wonder what ICS has to say 
about that...)

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
Ah, so the marginal texts are the Old Testament books, as opposed to New 
Testament books.
I see now.

~Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Robert J. Chassell]

I think, after that time, it was safe to say that Hussian wasn't
losing his grip on the country and wouldn't without an invasion.

The question is not whether one or other dictatorship was defeated,
whether in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, but whether its defeat was the best
use of resources.

For example, instead of spending a billion US dollars a week on Iraq,
the US Bush Administration could have borrowed and spent that money on
researching and developing alternative sources of energy.  I expect
most of the spending would have been wasted but think what the US
could have done:

  * pay farmers to grow biomass,

  * fund large numbers of biomass converters, like the one being built
to handle turkey wastes from a Butterball turkey factory,

  * pay to put solar hot water heaters on a million houses,

  * pay for ITER, a hydrogen fusion device,

  * pay for a whole bunch more hydrogen and hydrogen-boron fusion
devices,

  * pay for high-magnetic field superconductor research,

  * pay for windmills,

  * pay for ocean current devices,

  * pay for ocean temperature difference devices

... and then figure out how to spend the money last year ...  and now
this year ...

-- 
Robert J. Chassell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Martin Lewis]

On Apr 7, 2005 3:38 PM, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Is your position that the environmental movement's arguements against DDT
> have nothing to do with this?

 Yes.

 Martin
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Martin Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)


> On Apr 7, 2005 3:38 PM, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is your position that the environmental movement's arguements against
DDT
> > have nothing to do with this?
>
>  Yes.

Then why are Western governments and the UN willing to fund anti-malaria
techniques acceptable to the environmental movements, but not willing to
fund techniques that are unacceptable.  Pure coincidence?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> It means that there wasn't a third option between
> going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in
> power.  It didn't exist.  No one proposed one that was
> even vaguely plausible.  You could choose one or the
> other.

Really?  No other options?  Then what of all those that opposed the war, 
including almost every major religious organization across the globe?  Was the 
Pope trying to stop democracy in Iraq?  The World Council of Churches, the 
Conference of European Churches, the National Council of Churches of Christ in 
the USA, the Middle East Council of Churches, the churches of Norway, Finland 
and Denmark, Greece, the United Methodist Church, my own Lutheran church and 
on and on and on  -- were they all trying to stop democracy in Iraq when they 
opposed this war and proposed other options.

Are you aware of the six-point plan proposed by a group led by Jim Wallis, and 
Tony Blair's response to it?

You are aware, surely, that tremendous regime changes have taken place without 
wars?  The most recent example is South Africa.  Perhaps closer to your heart 
would be a certain enormous former British colony with a primarily Hindu 
population?

> In that list the people came down on
> all different sides of this issue - I don't even know
> where some of them did, actually.  But I don't think
> any of them thought a World Court indictment would be
> all that useful in removing Hussein.

I wasn't asking for a list, I was wondering how you propose to distinguish 
between the serious thinkers and those who are just playing games.  What are 
the criteria?

> The worst leaders in
> history (and they're not really worthy of the term)
> are the ones who pretended that there were no
> decisions to be made or costs to be paid.

You seem to be introducing a new issue here...?

> > > the people being dropped feet-first into shredding
> > machines.
> > 
> > Perhaps you forget that this sort of thing has
> > touched me rather directly.
> 
> Well, I don't know.  It doesn't seem to stop you from
> attacking the people who stopped it.  

Who?  Stopped what?  Whom have I attacked?  Did you read what I said at the 
press conference the week before last?

> I have no respect at all for
> constant condemnations of the morality of your
> political opponents, 

I've done my best to comment on policies, actions and decisions, not people.  
I've said many times, though perhaps not often here, that I believe George 
Bush is doing the best he can, for example.  That's hard for me to say, but it 
is a personal path to peace for me to refrain from playing the blame game.

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Martin Lewis]

On Apr 8, 2005 12:06 AM, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > > Is your position that the environmental movement's arguements against
> DDT
> > > have nothing to do with this?
> >
> >  Yes.
> 
> Then why are Western governments and the UN willing to fund anti-malaria
> techniques acceptable to the environmental movements, but not willing to
> fund techniques that are unacceptable.  Pure coincidence?

 Are you seriously suggesting that Greenpeace dictates US government
policy? The idea is laughable. Policy in Western governments and the
UN is formed by civil servants at the direction of politicians.

 Even if we accept the claim that such governments don't fund DDT (and
the article offers no figures) and add it to the ludicrous claim you
make above look how far the claim has receded to from its original
formulation. "Rich white liberals prevent the developing world from
using DDT" has become "rich white liberals won't buy DDT for the
developing world but will buy them other forms of malarial vector
control whilst encouraging them to buy and use DDT themselves."
Doesn't have quite the same ring as "environmentalists love to murder
brown people", does it?

 Martin
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Martin Lewis]

On Apr 7, 2005 12:25 AM, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >  Except, of course, that's not true.
> >
> >  http://www.who.int/malaria/vectorcontrol.html
> >
> >  Nice smear though.
> 
> And we refuse to fund DDT usage why, exactly?  The
> environmental movement has (and, in fact, continues
> to) push for a worldwide ban on DDT usage
> because...I'm sure you'll explain it to me, Martin.

 The same reason the WHO continue to push for a world ban: because it
is a nasty organophosphate that could be replaced by better ones. At
the moment however we are not in a position to entirely replace it so
DDT continues to be used for malarial vector control.

 Martin
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dave Land]

On Apr 7, 2005, at 2:57 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 7, 2005, at 2:50 PM, maru wrote:
I sure hope there is an antidote. American Christianity is rapidly 
beginning to resemble Middle East Islam. Both in the sense of 
insistence on hardline radical fundamentalism steeped in narrow 
interpretations of marginally-relevant texts; and in the sense of 
trying to turn our government into a theocracy.

...
'marginally-relevant texts'?
An example please; So far I've only seen various perversions of the 
Bible
(Unless you count Mel Gibson using the ravings of a delirious German 
nun
in his /Passion/.).
Perversions of the Bible don't affect its relevance as source material 
for wisdom. There's wisdom to be found in it, just as the Bhagavad 
Gita, the Dhammapada and the Koran contain wisdom.

The *marginal* relevance to which I referred is, in my mind, the way 
that Biblical myths have been used to assert the nature of reality. 
Six-day creation, Intelligent Design, and the Noachian deluge being 
the cause of the Grand Canyon, for instance.

(BTW, if the deluge really happened, how does this explain the 
existence of Meteor Crater, which is +10,000 years old? Shouldn't the 
flood have filled it in with sediment? Wonder what ICS has to say 
about that...)
For that matter, how would they deal with the discoveries made at the 
(wonderfully bizarre) U. S. Army Permafrost Tunnel 
(http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/permafrosttunnel/), which include 
"frozen environments over 40,000 years old."

Army. Permafrost. Tunnel. Who ever thought those words would go 
together?

Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

> I wrote "invasion" and you've just written "intervention."  Are we
talking
> about the same thing?

Yes.

> > In
> > particular, I'd be interested in seeing what steps that were
> > stronger than the sactions we imposed, but not hurtful to the people
> > of Iraq could be imposed.  But, given the facts, I think it would be
> > much more reasonable to count on his regime continuing than falling.
>
> If you believe this was a war of last resort, that there was no hope of
> removing him from power without an invasion, then we disagree.  I was
asking
> if that is your firm belief or not.

It is.

> > After 11 years of failure in that regard, I think
> > it is fair to ask for a specific plan and why it would have had a
> > good chance to suceed where the previous sanctions have failed.
>
> How about putting far more force behind inspections?  A force that
operates
> more like a police action, in which collateral damage is largely
unacceptable?

Look at the historical police actions.  They don't work against well armed
fighters.  For a police action to result in the overthrow of Hussian,  the
Republican guard would have had to let lightly armed units walk in and
arrest Hussian.

> > Nothing has worked ideally.  But, things have gotten better.  Life is
> > better in E. Germany and most of Eastern Europe after the Cold War
> > was won by the US.  Life in the Balkins is better after we acted.
>
> I hear this as that the end justified the means -- you're describing the
> outcomes, not how we got there.  Is that what you're saying?

What I am saying is that one has to weigh both the outcomes and how we got
there to determine the most moral action.  One cannot weigh the actual cost
of the means and the actual result against the outcome of a vauge idealized
plan.  I think one is morally obliged to consider the likely outcome of
choices not just hope for the best.

Analogies are risky, but let me try one.  Let's say someone has serious
heart problems, and the best chance for helping him that someone can come
up with now is a risky surgery.

> > But there is no evidence that
> > using just the right technique on potential perpetrators will stop
> > violence.
>
> I believe that humanity in modern times has been much better at avoiding
war
> than it has been throughout most of history.  Is there some reason not to
hope
> for that progress to continue?  Or do you disagree with my premise?

Well,

> > The best is oft the enemy of the good.  I do not see the
> > morality in refusing to accept the consequences of one's decision to
> > not act, as well as the consequences of action.
>
> Who are you talking about?  I hear a new issue here.

When I stated I was against the Iraq war I also stated that I acknowledged
that this would result in the continuation of widespread torture and murder
in Iraq. I don't see that in your posts.  Rather, I see a hope that some
vauge untried plan would work without cost.

Gautam quoted a number of people working in the area of international
ethics as well as the general question of war and peace.  He stated that
there was a strong consensus that nothing short of war would force Hussain
out.  Given the fact that this is part of his field of study, I would bet
that, while he may have missed one of them stating that there might be a
way to topple Hussain short of war, he has a pretty good feel for the
consensus.


> > > The questions I posed above are critical to making a moral decision,
I
> > believe
> > > -- did the nation in question attack us? Does it pose an imminent
threat.
> > If
> > > the answer to both is no, can war be justified?
> >
> > Sure.  Otherwise, it was immoral to act to stop the genocide in Rwanda.
>
> To what action are you referring?  I don't recall that we declared war on
> Rwanda at any point.  We eventually intervened in an internal war, didn't
we?

There was a meaningless police action after the genocide had already taken
place.  That's what we did.  The only way to stop the genocide was to have
a realistic threat to use overwhelming force to stop it.  And, realistic
means that you would have to actually go in if the government decided to
conclude that you were willing to threaten war, but you were not willing to
risk collateral damage to stop the genocide.

We had two realistic choices: being willing to go to war to stop it or
standing by and letting it happen.  Wishing for a third choice would not
have helped.

> > The Dutch would have bee

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dave Land]

On Apr 7, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Gautam
Mukunda wrote
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you saying that Warren been trying to
prevent
democracy in Iraq?
Functionally, yes.
What does that mean?
It means that there wasn't a third option between
going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in
power.  It didn't exist.  No one proposed one that was
even vaguely plausible.  You could choose one or the
other.
Substantial long-term support for the internal opposition
to Hussein would have been a third say: neither "going to
war" nor "leaving him in power." At the very least, we
would have avoided being seen and opposed as occupiers,
and at the best, we might have been credited with having
"uplifted" the Iraqis.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:38:03 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

> Look at the historical police actions.  They don't work against well 
> armed fighters.  For a police action to result in the overthrow of 
> Hussian,  the Republican guard would have had to let lightly armed 
> units walk in and arrest Hussian.

I wasn't talking about arresting him, I was talking about inspections.

And what about South Africa and India?  Are they not examples of regime 
changes that were accomplished without war?  Today, are we open to such 
possibilities, which seemed impossible to most people before they happened?

> I think one is morally obliged 
> to consider the likely outcome of choices not just hope for the best.

Are you saying that I proposed that we just hope for the best?

> Analogies are risky, but let me try one.  Let's say someone has serious
> heart problems, and the best chance for helping him that someone can 
> come up with now is a risky surgery.

How about if it is a risky surgery that will undoubtedly kill 10 bystanders 
and a few of the surgeons?  That's what war is -- it always entails collateral 
damage and non-combatant injuries and deaths.

> When I stated I was against the Iraq war I also stated that I acknowledged
> that this would result in the continuation of widespread torture and 
> murder in Iraq. I don't see that in your posts.  Rather, I see a 
> hope that some vauge untried plan would work without cost.

Without cost?  I haven't addressed that issue here, so please don't assume.  
My belief is that peacemakers are called to exercise as much discipline and be 
prepared to sacrifice just as much as a soldier.

> Gautam quoted a number of people working in the area of international
> ethics as well as the general question of war and peace.  He stated that
> there was a strong consensus that nothing short of war would force Hussain
> out.  Given the fact that this is part of his field of study, I 
> would bet that, while he may have missed one of them stating that 
> there might be a way to topple Hussain short of war, he has a pretty 
> good feel for the consensus.

What about the strong consensus among other constituencies that the war was 
wrong?  I refer to the churches and nations of the world who opposed or failed 
to support it.  While they may be wrong, it seems unreasonable to give any 
special weight to an academic or policy-maker consensus.

> We had two realistic choices: being willing to go to war to stop it 
> or standing by and letting it happen.  Wishing for a third choice 
> would not have helped.

I don't see anything there but an argument from your conclusion.

> OK, let's say, the Korean Police Action notwithstanding, that we can
> distinguish between police actions and war.  The Serbians came with
> significant force.  They were not going to be stopped by lightly 
> armed police.  

You're making so many assumptions.  Why would we send "lightly armed" police 
into such a situation?  When the United Nations undertakes a police action, it 
doesn't mean the troops go in lightly armed.  It means that the goals and 
rules of engagement are dramatically different than in a war.

> the only hope to fufill 
> the UN's promise to protect the people in Serbicidia was a 
> willingness to use war against the Serbs. When the UN insisted only 
> police actions were allowable, the fate of the people in Serbicidia 
> was sealed.

Because that was the only thing that would work?  Again, arguing from your 
conclusion, aren't you?  South Africa.  India.

> Look at Gautam's four criterion.  How would using a nuclear weapon 
> to stop a litter bug benefit the non litterer's around him?  

It would end the littering, of course.  My point was that the principles that 
Aquinas put forth raise further questions, they don't settle the issue.  The 
questions are good, but he was describing a path, not the destination.

> Why 
> isn't the arguement that the war must be, when all the costs and 
> benefits are added, better for the people in the theater of war 
> sufficiently stringent?

Because I believe my faith holds that there is a very strong presumption 
against war.  That means war is not justified by the fact that it will make 
things better, even when the cost might be expected to be low.  Perhaps that's 
because the cost really never is low.  I believe that we either must have been 
actually attacked or an in imminent danger of being attacked.  From a more 
secular standpoint, the presumption against war is necessary because we have 
an enormous ability to deceive ourselves, especially when we are in a position 
of wealth and power.

> Sure it isand it would have been smaller if we actually were 
> able to provide power and water.  But, at the same time, the 
> feelings are clearly mixed.  The most influential figure in Iraq is 
> not calling for immediate withdrawal.  

Nor am I.  But I would be happy to see another entity in charge immediately, 
with a good strategy for disengagement as quickl

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Dave Land]

On Apr 7, 2005, at 5:36 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
And what about South Africa and India?  Are they not examples of regime
changes that were accomplished without war?  Today, are we open to such
possibilities, which seemed impossible to most people before they 
happened?
I don't remember our invading the Soviet Union, either, and I seem to
recall some sort of regime change there, too.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)

[Steve Sloan]

Nick Arnett wrote:
> You are aware, surely, that tremendous regime changes have taken
> place without wars?  The most recent example is South Africa.
I agree with that example.
> Perhaps closer to your heart would be a certain enormous former
> British colony with a primarily Hindu population?
Against the British. They were misguided, but they genuinely
thought they were helping the countries they colonized. Ghandi's
passive resistance techniques worked on the British, but how well
would they have worked against a monster like Saddam?
__
Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org
Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store
Chmeee's 3D Objects  http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee
3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com
Software  Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links
Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l