Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
"In modern times we have the names of Chinese people and cities changing as different methods of transcribing Chines to English gain favor -- Peking became Beijing, and Mao Tse Tung became Mao Zedong." Well, I disagree with the implications here. At least with Chinese names the new transliterations are MUCH closer than the old British ones. If you read 'Beijing' in english, it sounds very near to what Chinese have always called that city (the old British names were an attempt, I believe, to anglo-cize and cover-up the native culture). Likewise with Mao Zedong, though if you don't know the proper 'key' for pronouncing the pinyin transliterations (Yale is much better), then you get this one a little wrong (I think Yale would have written it Mao Dz Dong). -TD From: "Kevin S. Van Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Harmon Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort? Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 10:12:53 -0600 Harmon Seaver wrote: Translate/transliterate is irrelevant -- you don't change people's names, Ever hear of King Ferdinand of Spain? His real name was, of course, Fernando -- Ferdinand is merely the English equivalent. Likewise, English and Spanish speakers use different names for the same explorer -- "Christopher Columbus" vs. "Cristobal Colon". We have the Greek Odysseus, who the Romans called Ulysses, and the Greek god Zeus, who the Romans called Jupiter. In modern times we have the names of Chinese people and cities changing as different methods of transcribing Chines to English gain favor -- Peking became Beijing, and Mao Tse Tung became Mao Zedong. _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
Harmon Seaver wrote: > You > don't translate names. Especially you don't change the name of the god. Read the > Old Testament, see how incredibly many times you find phrases like "the holy > name of the lord", "blessed be the name", "the wonderful name", etc. You don't even know the difference between translation and transliteration.
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +0100, Ken Brown wrote: > Harmon, > > your knowledge of the history of the Roman Empire & early Christianity > is flakier than Choate's physics. Go home and read some history books > instead of New Age loonies with a persecution complex. I'm not reading new age anything, simply the writings of the early church fathers and church history. All solid, well-recognized scholarly works. The same works studied in any good university biblical literature program. You don't translate names. Especially you don't change the name of the god. Read the Old Testament, see how incredibly many times you find phrases like "the holy name of the lord", "blessed be the name", "the wonderful name", etc. > > No point in refuting the heap of ignorance appended below because there > isn't enough meaningful in it to require an answer - but if it makes > you feel superior to fantasise that using a modern-style transliteration > of an Aramaic name as "Yeshua" instead of the Latin-style "Jesus" makes > you some sort of elite soul, go right ahead. The Greek spelling of the > name is Iesous anyway. And the origin is the same Hebrew name that also > comes to us as Joshua and Hosea. That sort of thing happens when you > move between alphabets. > > > Harmon Seaver wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 08:43:34PM +0100, Ken Brown wrote: > > > Steve Schear wrote: > > > > > > > At 06:34 PM 3/30/2003 -0500, stuart wrote: > > > > >On Sunday, March 30, 2003, Harmon Seaver came up with this... > > > > > > > > > >You give too much credit to the Romans. Catholicism worked so well > > > > >because it is a virus, and conversion was often forced upon heathens by > > > > >their fellow countrymen. > > > > > > > > Interestingly though, Christianity started in the Holy Land but never got > > > > much traction there. > > > > > > Not true. Palestine became majority Christian quite early, as did parts > > > of Syria, Armenia and Arabia. All those places, and also Egypt, were > > > largely converted long before the Christians had any political power. > > > >No, they weren't "christian" -- they were followers of Rabbi Yeshua ben > > Yoseph ha Natzri, later called Mesheach ha Israel. No Jewish moma ever named her > > little boy Jesus, which is a Greek name, and the Jews had just spent 200 years > > of ethnic cleansing anything that looked, smelled, or spoke Greek. Jesus and > > Christ and christianity were something invented by the europeans -- a take-off > > of the Jewish messiah and with some of the early writings, heavily edited, of > > Rabbi Yeshua's apostles, but rather a different thing. When the Romans started > > trying to alter things, the groups in Palestine, Syria, etc. essentially told > > them to fuck off. > >The "epistles of Paul", for example, were written in Greek, while the earlier > > stuff was originally written in Hebrew, then very badly translated into Greek, > > essentially by the word for word substitution method, which really resulted in > > some strange passages in the new testament. Some scholars have been reverse > > translating them by the same method with good results, but of course there's a > > lot of official opposition to this (just as there is to translating the Dead Sea > > scrolls) and zero funding. > > Interestingly enough, Paul's letters would have been totally lost except for > > one man, Marcion, who collected them all. Unfortunately, he was a Gnostic, not a > > christian, and a rabid anti-semite, so he took a scissors and cut out anything > > that was at all favorable to the jews and burned it, leaving some very strange > > and heavily altered texts. > >The new testament wasn't canonized until around 400-500ad, can't remember > > exactly, but anyway long after the council at nicea where they excommunicated > > all the Palistinian, etc. followers of the Rabbi, and also after christianity > > had been made the official state religion of the empire, so any hope of the > > real authentic older teachings being included was long gone. And, of course, we > > know that pretty much as soon as they were made the official church, they went > > about destroying the old religion's temples, sacred texts, etc and persecuting > > the followers. > >Talk about "broken chains of tradition". 8-) > > > > -- > > Harmon Seaver > > CyberShamanix > > http://www.cybershamanix.com -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
Harmon, your knowledge of the history of the Roman Empire & early Christianity is flakier than Choate's physics. Go home and read some history books instead of New Age loonies with a persecution complex. No point in refuting the heap of ignorance appended below because there isn't enough meaningful in it to require an answer - but if it makes you feel superior to fantasise that using a modern-style transliteration of an Aramaic name as "Yeshua" instead of the Latin-style "Jesus" makes you some sort of elite soul, go right ahead. The Greek spelling of the name is Iesous anyway. And the origin is the same Hebrew name that also comes to us as Joshua and Hosea. That sort of thing happens when you move between alphabets. Harmon Seaver wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 08:43:34PM +0100, Ken Brown wrote: > > Steve Schear wrote: > > > > > At 06:34 PM 3/30/2003 -0500, stuart wrote: > > > >On Sunday, March 30, 2003, Harmon Seaver came up with this... > > > > > > > >You give too much credit to the Romans. Catholicism worked so well > > > >because it is a virus, and conversion was often forced upon heathens by > > > >their fellow countrymen. > > > > > > Interestingly though, Christianity started in the Holy Land but never got > > > much traction there. > > > > Not true. Palestine became majority Christian quite early, as did parts > > of Syria, Armenia and Arabia. All those places, and also Egypt, were > > largely converted long before the Christians had any political power. > >No, they weren't "christian" -- they were followers of Rabbi Yeshua ben > Yoseph ha Natzri, later called Mesheach ha Israel. No Jewish moma ever named her > little boy Jesus, which is a Greek name, and the Jews had just spent 200 years > of ethnic cleansing anything that looked, smelled, or spoke Greek. Jesus and > Christ and christianity were something invented by the europeans -- a take-off > of the Jewish messiah and with some of the early writings, heavily edited, of > Rabbi Yeshua's apostles, but rather a different thing. When the Romans started > trying to alter things, the groups in Palestine, Syria, etc. essentially told > them to fuck off. >The "epistles of Paul", for example, were written in Greek, while the earlier > stuff was originally written in Hebrew, then very badly translated into Greek, > essentially by the word for word substitution method, which really resulted in > some strange passages in the new testament. Some scholars have been reverse > translating them by the same method with good results, but of course there's a > lot of official opposition to this (just as there is to translating the Dead Sea > scrolls) and zero funding. > Interestingly enough, Paul's letters would have been totally lost except for > one man, Marcion, who collected them all. Unfortunately, he was a Gnostic, not a > christian, and a rabid anti-semite, so he took a scissors and cut out anything > that was at all favorable to the jews and burned it, leaving some very strange > and heavily altered texts. >The new testament wasn't canonized until around 400-500ad, can't remember > exactly, but anyway long after the council at nicea where they excommunicated > all the Palistinian, etc. followers of the Rabbi, and also after christianity > had been made the official state religion of the empire, so any hope of the > real authentic older teachings being included was long gone. And, of course, we > know that pretty much as soon as they were made the official church, they went > about destroying the old religion's temples, sacred texts, etc and persecuting > the followers. >Talk about "broken chains of tradition". 8-) > > -- > Harmon Seaver > CyberShamanix > http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
Steve Schear wrote: > At 06:34 PM 3/30/2003 -0500, stuart wrote: > >On Sunday, March 30, 2003, Harmon Seaver came up with this... > > > >You give too much credit to the Romans. Catholicism worked so well > >because it is a virus, and conversion was often forced upon heathens by > >their fellow countrymen. > > Interestingly though, Christianity started in the Holy Land but never got > much traction there. Not true. Palestine became majority Christian quite early, as did parts of Syria, Armenia and Arabia. All those places, and also Egypt, were largely converted long before the Christians had any political power.
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:09:17PM -0600, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: > Harmon Seaver wrote: > > >>And what makes you think things would have been any better in the > >>absence of Christianity? > > > >You've heard of the Inquistion perhaps? > > > The Catholic Church (which carried out the Inquisition, in cooperation > with various governments) is not the whole of Christianity. There are > also the Orthodox churches, the Protestant denominations, and various > other branches. Duh! The witch-burnings carried out by the protestants was just another part of that holocaust. As is the persecution of wiccans and other pagans today, primarily conducted by protestant fundy christers. > > Furthermore, you haven't given any evidence that what happened in Europe > was any worse than what has happened under countless tyrants the world > over. Nor do you account for the crucial role the Christian religion > played in abolishing slavery. If you read the history, there were just as many christer theologists and ministers arguing *for* slavery as there were against. > > >Or the War On Some Drugs, the modern inquisition? > > You won't find a prohibition against using drugs, nor a requirement to > persecute those who use them, anywhere in the Christian scriptures. > Granted, but the entire christer establishment is behind the War On Some Drugs. And, if you take a look at the history of that war, and the War On Some Relgions carried out in this hemispere from 1492 onward, guess who promulgates it? > >Any monotheistic religion is by definition exclusive > > Exclusive as to what they consider proper object of worship, yes. > > >persecutorial of others. > > "By definition persecutorial" is bullshit. > How so? If there is only "one god" and "one way", then all others are wrong, and need to be stamped out. Christer proselytizing and missions are by definition persecution of others. In the US, for example, the christers got the government to even totally forbid native americans to practice or teach their religions. The massacre at Wounded Knee was to stop a religious ceremony, for example. > I am no longer a religious person of any sort myself, but I know from > personal experience what real-life Christians are like, Oh, so do I. > as opposed to > the cartoon caricature you seem to carry in your head. I've experienced > both the good and the bad. > Do you have any real experience with > Christians, as opposed to the stereotypes promulgated on TV and in the > movies by bigoted screenwriters and producers? > Ah yes, as a matter of fact. I was a fundamentalist for a good many years, member in good standing (probably still am, for that matter, AFAIK) of the Assembly of God church. Babtized in the Spirit, speaking in tongues, the whole bit. I was also involved in a street ministry years ago. And if you checked my resume on my website, you might notice I have a degree from the UW in religious studies, with an emphasis on biblical literature. > One good thing that Christianity and other religions do is instill a > sense of right and wrong in people and thereby promote adherence to > basic standards of conduct. Baaahhhhhhaaa ROFL As Christianity (and religion in general) > has waned in America, no adequate replacement for this function has > emerged. Perhaps as a result, American culture no longer values honor > and honesty. It never did. The ultra-religious christers who landed at Plymouth Rock had no compunction against robbing and murdering native americans, or burning witches. And my forefathers, at least on my father's side, were among them. On my mother's side were some of the natives getting ripped off. If you look at early american history, it's pretty clear there was not a great deal of morality, within or without the church. (more drivel snipped) -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
Harmon Seaver wrote: But of course, the problems really pre-date all that, going back to when the christer Romans came and killed off the Druids and Wiccans who wouldn't bend the knee to conversion, as they did in the rest of Europe. You are completely and utterly wrong here. The Romans never conquered Ireland; furthermore, the conversion to Christianity was entirely voluntary and peaceful in Ireland. For quite some time there was an independent Irish Christian church that was independent of Rome. Don't assume that what held true in other parts of Europe necessarily held true in Ireland.
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
Harmon Seaver wrote: And what makes you think things would have been any better in the absence of Christianity? You've heard of the Inquistion perhaps? The Catholic Church (which carried out the Inquisition, in cooperation with various governments) is not the whole of Christianity. There are also the Orthodox churches, the Protestant denominations, and various other branches. Furthermore, you haven't given any evidence that what happened in Europe was any worse than what has happened under countless tyrants the world over. Nor do you account for the crucial role the Christian religion played in abolishing slavery. Or the War On Some Drugs, the modern inquisition? You won't find a prohibition against using drugs, nor a requirement to persecute those who use them, anywhere in the Christian scriptures. Any monotheistic religion is by definition exclusive Exclusive as to what they consider proper object of worship, yes. persecutorial of others. "By definition persecutorial" is bullshit. I am no longer a religious person of any sort myself, but I know from personal experience what real-life Christians are like, as opposed to the cartoon caricature you seem to carry in your head. I've experienced both the good and the bad. Do you have any real experience with Christians, as opposed to the stereotypes promulgated on TV and in the movies by bigoted screenwriters and producers? One good thing that Christianity and other religions do is instill a sense of right and wrong in people and thereby promote adherence to basic standards of conduct. As Christianity (and religion in general) has waned in America, no adequate replacement for this function has emerged. Perhaps as a result, American culture no longer values honor and honesty. The protagonists in popular movies, TV series, and books have not the slightest moral scruples about lying, nor, in many cases, about stealing. There is no longer any shame attached to failing to keep your word. There is no longer any shame attached to sponging off of others instead of pulling your own weight. I'd like to think that we don't have to resort to superstitions to promote these moral standards, but the experience to date in America is not encouraging.
RE: Trials for those undermining the war effort
> It never did. The ultra-religious christers who landed > at Plymouth Rock > had no compunction against robbing and murdering native > americans, or burning I'm surprised that most on this list aren't getting caught by politicians' rethoric, but fall for the religious types' one. It's all the same: a scam made for a group to gain power over the people. Some people believe this, and those who really do believe this usually do it in good faith. Some people up in the hierarchy might even believe some of it, but that's not the norm. Besides, religion has always been used as a lever (by religious types and non religious types) to control the people's actions, often with the complicity and/or active leadership of the hierarchy. And it's a neat propaganda tool, too. -- Vincent Penquerc'h
Re: Final solutions (was Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort)
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: > I still think the best solution is just huge tanker planes full of LSD > spraying combative groups/areas once a week. Actually, LSD was considered as an incapacitating chemical weapon. Another psychedelic, 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, aka BZ, was even weaponized into an actual chemical munition. For more details, see http://www.mitretek.org/home.nsf/homelandsecurity/PsychoAgents Maybe it would be enough to convince the generals (or, better, force Rumsfeld) to smoke grass. Could make them more peaceful...
Re: Final solutions (was Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort)
I still think the best solution is just huge tanker planes full of LSD spraying combative groups/areas once a week. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
At 5:44 AM -0800 3/31/03, Harmon Seaver wrote: >On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:15:46AM +0100, Steve Mynott wrote: >> 3. "Wicca" is a modern invention. > > Hardly. >WEIK- [2]. In words connectid with magic and religious notions (in > Germanic and Latin). 1. Germanic suffixed form *WIH-L- in Old >English > WIGLE, divination, sorcery, akin to the Germanic source of Old >French > GUILE, cunning trickery: GUILE. 2. Germanic expressive form >*WIKK- > in: a. Old English WICCA, wizard, and WICCE, witch: WITCH; >b. Old > English WICCIAN, to cast a spell: BEWITCH. My ODE defines Wicche as an obsolete word meaning witch. Now, one can argue whether the modern concept of Wicca has any relation to the old northern European religions, but the word seems be based on fairly old roots. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Final solutions (was Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort)
At 01:34 PM 3/30/03 -0500, stuart wrote: >On Sunday, March 30, 2003, Harmon Seaver came up with this... >HS> Too bad the Romans didn't finish the job of feeding that lot to the lions >HS> a couple of milleniums ago. A similarly open-minded friend once commented (far too loudly in a cafe) that exact sentiment --if you're going to invade, kill em all, or deal with centuries of violence. After realizing the clarity of this, I did come up with a softer solution. Forced reloaction & interbreeding is likely to 1. destroy territorial histories and 2. eliminate strong physical and cultural differences. Move all the Irish to Palestine (give 'em plenty of sunblock), move all the Palestinians & Zionists to Ireland, and have the A-type male teens school with B-type female teens. Banning (or agglomerating or replacing historic) religions is likely to help too. >Encouraging the imperial persecution of a religious minority? Religions are terrorist weapons, dude.
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:15:46AM +0100, Steve Mynott wrote: > Harmon Seaver wrote: > >On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 01:25:47PM -0500, stuart wrote: > > [..] > > >>Apparently you know nothing of the history of Britain and Ireland. > > > > > >No, I do. > > No you don't. > > > But of course, the problems really pre-date all that, going back to > > when the > >christer Romans came and killed off the Druids and Wiccans who wouldn't > >bend the > >knee to conversion, as they did in the rest of Europe. > > Three problems with that:- > > 1. The Romans never invaded Ireland Yes, I was mixing up the Roman church with the original Roman invasion of the Isles. The invasion of the Roman church was later, but they did, in fact, persecute the Druids and Wiccans as well. > > 2. The Romans which invaded mainland Britain weren't Christian (if > that's what you mean by "christer"). They worshiped many Gods with the > cult of Mithras being popular with the army. You're right, they weren't christers at that point, however they most certainly did try to eradicate the Druids: Dealing with the druids. Part of this mopping up took the form of eradicating the Druids. As a rule the Romans were very tolerant of the religions of the peoples they conquered (hurrah for the Romans!). However, the Druids represented not just a religious hierarchy, but real political and administrative authority among the Celts. And to give the Romans their due, they seem to have been genuinely horrified by what they considered the grisly and uncivilized practices of the Druids. http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Roman_invasion.htm > > 3. "Wicca" is a modern invention. Hardly. WEIK- [2]. In words connectid with magic and religious notions (in Germanic and Latin). 1. Germanic suffixed form *WIH-L- in Old English WIGLE, divination, sorcery, akin to the Germanic source of Old French GUILE, cunning trickery: GUILE. 2. Germanic expressive form *WIKK- in: a. Old English WICCA, wizard, and WICCE, witch: WITCH; b. Old English WICCIAN, to cast a spell: BEWITCH. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
Harmon Seaver wrote: On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 01:25:47PM -0500, stuart wrote: [..] Apparently you know nothing of the history of Britain and Ireland. No, I do. No you don't. But of course, the problems really pre-date all that, going back to when the christer Romans came and killed off the Druids and Wiccans who wouldn't bend the knee to conversion, as they did in the rest of Europe. Three problems with that:- 1. The Romans never invaded Ireland 2. The Romans which invaded mainland Britain weren't Christian (if that's what you mean by "christer"). They worshiped many Gods with the cult of Mithras being popular with the army. 3. "Wicca" is a modern invention. -- Steve -- Steve
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
At 11:39 PM 3/30/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: Very, very few religions, other than the judeo/christer/islamic, are interested in forced conversions, or even do any proselytizing at all. Nor do they usually persecute women. The entire christer theology makes persecution inevitable. Any monotheistic religion is by definition exclusive and persecutorial of others. This point is dealt with in some depth, though not exactly from this perspective, in "History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium," by Paul Veyne (Editor), Philippe Aries, Arthur Goldhammer (Translator). http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674399749/103-6357111-3084653?vi=glance steve
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 06:34:08PM -0500, stuart wrote: > > First of all, 'wicca' is some bullshit thought up by a delusional old > man less than 75 years ago, the only persecution of wiccans the world > has seen is when they get made fun of in high school. Don't know where you got this idea from, the First Papal Inquisition in 1232 was specifically for witches and sorcerers. And a bit later, in the Burning Times (1450-1700 roughly) the church burned and hanged hundreds of thousands of people, mostly women witches or alleged witches. But witches (wiccans) predate history and are found in most ancient cultures around the world. > > Second, the Romans had an incredibly difficult time in Great Britain. > They managed to traverse most of England, but Ireland they barely even > visited. And Scotland, well, they were so scared of us they built walls > to keep us out. :) > > You give too much credit to the Romans. Catholicism worked so well > because it is a virus, and conversion was often forced upon heathens by > their fellow countrymen. > Whether by the Romans or their fellow countryman matters little, it was the Roman Church just the same doing the forcing, which was the point. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 10:55:46PM -0600, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: > Harmon Seaver wrote: > > >>Encouraging the imperial persecution of a religious minority? > >> > >Well, it looks at this point that it would have been a reasonable > >trade-off, given the millions who have been tortured and murdered in > >Europe and the Americas since the Council of Nicea in 425 by the offspring > >of those surviving christers. > > > And what makes you think things would have been any better in the > absence of Christianity? You've heard of the Inquistion perhaps? Or the War On Some Drugs, the modern inquisition? Very, very few religions, other than the judeo/christer/islamic, are interested in forced conversions, or even do any proselytizing at all. Nor do they usually persecute women. The entire christer theology makes persecution inevitable. Any monotheistic religion is by definition exclusive and persecutorial of others. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
Harmon Seaver wrote: Encouraging the imperial persecution of a religious minority? Well, it looks at this point that it would have been a reasonable trade-off, given the millions who have been tortured and murdered in Europe and the Americas since the Council of Nicea in 425 by the offspring of those surviving christers. And what makes you think things would have been any better in the absence of Christianity?
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
At 06:34 PM 3/30/2003 -0500, stuart wrote: On Sunday, March 30, 2003, Harmon Seaver came up with this... You give too much credit to the Romans. Catholicism worked so well because it is a virus, and conversion was often forced upon heathens by their fellow countrymen. Interestingly though, Christianity started in the Holy Land but never got much traction there. There have been persistent rumors that one of the reasons was that it was based on some very big lies, that would be easily spotted for such at their place of origin, and so it was spread to those who had not a way to check on their verasity (communications being rather poor in those days). One story is that Christ and Barabbas (the Jew who was pardoned by Pilate) were brothers or father and son, and that Jesus chose to die in his brother's/son's place. steve
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
On Sunday, March 30, 2003, Harmon Seaver came up with this... HS> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 01:34:38PM -0500, stuart wrote: >> Encouraging the imperial persecution of a religious minority? HS>Well, it looks at this point that it would have been a reasonable trade-off, HS> given the millions who have been tortured and murdered in Europe and the HS> Americas since the Council of Nicea in 425 by the offspring of those surviving HS> christers. And considering all those from Africa murdered and enslaved here by HS> christers, And especially now, considering the millions enslaved as we speak HS> in the US by christers, and what we can clearly see about to happen with HS> the new christer crusades. All of this has nothing to do with early Christians. You could say the Romans should have wiped out the early Germanic tribes and so averted the Holocaust, but would you? By this precedent, yes. HS>Sometimes the few must be sacrificed for the common good, eh? 8-) You might make an excellent totalitarian ruler. HS> Obviously the christers, past and present, see it that way. Be careful who you lump together. Most Christians do not wish for the things you describe here. You are confusing fundamentalists with the rest. They may be loud, they may have power, they are most certainly not all. -- stuart Anyone who tells you they want a utopia wants to put chains on the souls of your children. They want to deny history and strangle any unforeseen possibility. They should be resisted to the last breath. -Bruce Sterling-
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
On Sunday, March 30, 2003, Harmon Seaver came up with this... HS>IIRC, the protestants aren't Irish, they are Brits, the remainder of the brit HS> occupying forces. The Irish were essentially slaves of the brits for centuries. The six counties now known as Northern Ireland would not be separate from the rest if there wasn't an Irish Protestant majority there. There were many Scots there, there were fewer English, but they are for the most part very Irish. HS>But of course, the problems really pre-date all that, going back to when the HS> christer Romans came and killed off the Druids and Wiccans who wouldn't bend the HS> knee to conversion, as they did in the rest of Europe. First of all, 'wicca' is some bullshit thought up by a delusional old man less than 75 years ago, the only persecution of wiccans the world has seen is when they get made fun of in high school. Second, the Romans had an incredibly difficult time in Great Britain. They managed to traverse most of England, but Ireland they barely even visited. And Scotland, well, they were so scared of us they built walls to keep us out. :) You give too much credit to the Romans. Catholicism worked so well because it is a virus, and conversion was often forced upon heathens by their fellow countrymen. -- stuart Anyone who tells you they want a utopia wants to put chains on the souls of your children. They want to deny history and strangle any unforeseen possibility. They should be resisted to the last breath. -Bruce Sterling-
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 02:09:11PM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: > At 01:15 PM 03/30/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: > > IIRC, the protestants aren't Irish, they are Brits, the remainder of > >the brit > >occupying forces. The Irish were essentially slaves of the brits for > >centuries. > > You don't remember correctly. Most of the Protestants in Ulster > were moved there in the 1700s from Scotland during the conquests there. > It took care of two problems at once - displacing a lot of the Irish, > and getting a lot of uncooperative Scots out of Scotland. > ahh, that's what it was. I knew they weren't Irish at any rate. > > But of course, the problems really pre-date all that, going back to > when the > >christer Romans came and killed off the Druids and Wiccans who wouldn't > >bend the > >knee to conversion, as they did in the rest of Europe. > > While there was some of that, there wasn't much, > particularly in Scandinavia - Norse Odinism was a pretty depressing > religion, > and the population converted at least nominally very quickly, > though it took a while to get concepts like "Don't kill" and "Don't steal" > accepted as widely as "Don't sacrifice people to the old gods", > given that viking was a standard part of the Viking economy. > The number of women, in particular, who were murdered by the church is pretty high, not just during the initial "conversion" but also during the following Inquistion. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
At 01:15 PM 03/30/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: IIRC, the protestants aren't Irish, they are Brits, the remainder of the brit occupying forces. The Irish were essentially slaves of the brits for centuries. You don't remember correctly. Most of the Protestants in Ulster were moved there in the 1700s from Scotland during the conquests there. It took care of two problems at once - displacing a lot of the Irish, and getting a lot of uncooperative Scots out of Scotland. > But of course, the problems really pre-date all that, going back to when the christer Romans came and killed off the Druids and Wiccans who wouldn't bend the knee to conversion, as they did in the rest of Europe. While there was some of that, there wasn't much, particularly in Scandinavia - Norse Odinism was a pretty depressing religion, and the population converted at least nominally very quickly, though it took a while to get concepts like "Don't kill" and "Don't steal" accepted as widely as "Don't sacrifice people to the old gods", given that viking was a standard part of the Viking economy.
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 01:34:38PM -0500, stuart wrote: > On Sunday, March 30, 2003, Harmon Seaver came up with this... > HS> Too bad the Romans didn't finish the job of feeding that lot to the lions > HS> a couple of milleniums ago. > > Encouraging the imperial persecution of a religious minority? Well, it looks at this point that it would have been a reasonable trade-off, given the millions who have been tortured and murdered in Europe and the Americas since the Council of Nicea in 425 by the offspring of those surviving christers. And considering all those from Africa murdered and enslaved here by christers, And especially now, considering the millions enslaved as we speak in the US by christers, and what we can clearly see about to happen with the new christer crusades. Sometimes the few must be sacrificed for the common good, eh? 8-) Obviously the christers, past and present, see it that way. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 01:25:47PM -0500, stuart wrote: > On Saturday, March 29, 2003, Harmon Seaver came up with this... > HS>Yeah, too bad they don't feel the same way about Ireland. The > HS> Irish have been trying to kick the Brits out for what, 400 years? > HS> At least. > > Apparently you know nothing of the history of Britain and Ireland. No, I do. > > The story of Britain and Ireland is not simply one occupying another. > The Irish are not one mass of people, they are two: Protestant and > Catholic. Before they became a part of the Kingdom they were Catholic. > After, many Irish converted to Protestantism. IIRC, the protestants aren't Irish, they are Brits, the remainder of the brit occupying forces. The Irish were essentially slaves of the brits for centuries. But of course, the problems really pre-date all that, going back to when the christer Romans came and killed off the Druids and Wiccans who wouldn't bend the knee to conversion, as they did in the rest of Europe. (snip) -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
On Sunday, March 30, 2003, Harmon Seaver came up with this... HS> Too bad the Romans didn't finish the job of feeding that lot to the lions HS> a couple of milleniums ago. Encouraging the imperial persecution of a religious minority? -- stuart We wave the flag of freedom as we conquer and invade. -Operation Ivy-
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
On Saturday, March 29, 2003, Harmon Seaver came up with this... HS>Yeah, too bad they don't feel the same way about Ireland. The HS> Irish have been trying to kick the Brits out for what, 400 years? HS> At least. Apparently you know nothing of the history of Britain and Ireland. The story of Britain and Ireland is not simply one occupying another. The Irish are not one mass of people, they are two: Protestant and Catholic. Before they became a part of the Kingdom they were Catholic. After, many Irish converted to Protestantism. There was terrible persecution of the Catholics by the British. This died down by the time of the Union in 1800. The Catholics wanted out of the Union, the Protestants didn't. Violence, bloodshed, rinse & repeat. Eventually the south became the Repulic of Ireland while the North remained a part of the Union. Catholic majority in the south, Protestant in the north. Those Catholics left in the north weren't treated as equals, and wanted a united Ireland. The Protestant majority in the north was SCARED TO DEATH of seceding from the Union and becoming a part of the Republic of Ireland because they knew they will be shit on by the Catholics. Remember, the north is 6 counties to the south's 26. The Protestants are far outnumbered. Hence they are separate, and remain a part of the Union instead of being one with the south. This is the root of the conflict. It's not the British occupying Ireland. Ireland is free, Northern Ireland is a part of the Union. Ireland wants the north, the north doesn't want Ireland. If the British just left Northern Ireland, there would probably be some serious ethnic cleansing due to centuries of animosity. The Protestant majority in the north DO NOT WANT TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION. The British aren't in Northern Ireland holding on to a last scrap of empire, they are there because Northern Ireland is a part of Britain, and the majority of those in Northern Ireland want it to stay that way. Now Scotland, on the other hand, THEY want out of the Union. -- stuart We wave the flag of freedom as we conquer and invade. -Operation Ivy-
iraqi gun ownership (was Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
At 0:55 -0800 2003/03/30, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 06:09 PM 03/29/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: >>Check out http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48331-2003Mar29.html >> >> If all the Iraqi farmers/civilians have half this guy's stash... > >It's probably safer to invade Iraq than, say, Switzerland, >because the Iraqi government probably didn't trust all its >ethnic minorities with weapons, or at least not enough to buy them for everyone. Bit on BBC a couple of weeks ago listed Iraq as having the highest private gun ownership rate in the world, after the anarchic warlord states in Africa. Had a nice interview at an open-air gun market, one of the sellers said that Smith & Wesson was quite popular. -- J. Eric Townsend -- jet spies com buy stuff, damnit: http://www.spies.com/jet/store.html
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
At 06:09 PM 03/29/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: Check out http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48331-2003Mar29.html If all the Iraqi farmers/civilians have half this guy's stash... It's probably safer to invade Iraq than, say, Switzerland, because the Iraqi government probably didn't trust all its ethnic minorities with weapons, or at least not enough to buy them for everyone. (And by the way, the pro-invasion side bashes the French for surrendering to the Germans, largely because they don't support the invasion, but they're not bashing the Swiss for not joining the COWboys, and they _are_ bashing the Iraqi civilians for acting Swiss, not French.) That was one of the absurd things in the US-Somali war, where US military forces claimed they were going to disarm the Somalis. While many of the Somalis they were attacking had moved into cities, it's still a culture that have traditionally been nomadic cattle-herders, and telling them to give up their weapons was rather stupider than going to an NRA rally in Texas ranch country and telling _them_ that. It's not like the Somalis had gone armadillo since the Siad-Barre dictatorship; they'd just gradually adopted AK47s along with the traditional spears.
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
"Weyrich, a member of the extreme Catholic right and a professed admirer of the pro-Nazi demagogue Father Coughlin, has founded or cofounded numerous right-wing organizations, including the Moral Majority." http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/free_congress.htm Yup. A real sweet guy, this Weyrich. Father Coughlin -- isn't "christian love" just a marvel to behold? And wouldn't the world be a much nicer place today if the Romans *had* finished that job? Thanks for alerting us about these demons, Declan. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 12:22:41AM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 04:36:08PM -0800, Eric Cordian wrote: > > Are there specific facts on that Web page that you believe to be in error? > > Did you read the hilarious description of FCF and EFF? I assume not, > if you had to ask... It seems to be making the point that the FCF is not truthful about it's programs, the recipients of their support, and is generally not forthcoming, indeed, even secretive, about it's activities, which seems more than a little strange for a group promoting liberty. I haven't seen anything at all critical of EFF, they're using that example to point up how FCF operates. FCF looks to me to be a pretty creepy bunch like all the christer right. I get the same gag reflex reading about them as I do seeing a picture or hearing the voice of Asscruft. Or Dubya, Rumdum, Farwell, Roberts, etc. Ick. The whole bunch really creeps me out, like watching a really nasty horror flick. Too bad the Romans didn't finish the job of feeding that lot to the lions a couple of milleniums ago. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 04:36:08PM -0800, Eric Cordian wrote: > Are there specific facts on that Web page that you believe to be in error? Did you read the hilarious description of FCF and EFF? I assume not, if you had to ask... I have better things to do with my time than critique this stuff or defend a group I'm criticizing for throwing the word "treason" around so loosely, so you'll have to look elsewhere for someone to do the painstaking debunking you seem to require. -Declan
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 07:29 PM, J.A. Terranson wrote: On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: That may well be. Sedition trials and concentration camps wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. The concentration camps are jails this time, where you are held as a "material witness". The "trials" will be in a secret court, fed by secret evidence, where you won't be entitled to a lawyer nor the "right" of facing your accuser (after all, you are an enemy combatant now...). I forget where I saw it, but a television show had a "perp" being threatened by the DA that he'd be transported to Gitmo, where U.S. rights no longer apply. Fiction, maybe, but a sure sign of where American ideals have gone. Fearless Leader whines that the Iraqis are not treating POWs according to the Geneva Convention while a thousand "illegal combatants" captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan are held in cages, transported in metal shipping containers, and tortured. --Tim May "Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound"
Re: CDR: Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: >That may well be. Sedition trials and concentration camps wouldn't surprise > me in the slightest. The concentration camps are jails this time, where you are held as a "material witness". The "trials" will be in a secret court, fed by secret evidence, where you won't be entitled to a lawyer nor the "right" of facing your accuser (after all, you are an enemy combatant now...). -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
Declan writes: > Interesting, but mostly insanely wrong. Written by someone who is a > hardcore leftist, it seems, and heavily slanted. I know the folks at > FCF, and they're not mass murderers, racists, xenophobes, or guilty > of the other allegations the author makes. Hmmm. I read through the text at the specified URL, and got the distinct impression that the FCF was not being accused of being mass murderers, racists, or xenophobes, but rather of supporting and having links to various political figures to which that description might apply. Are there specific facts on that Web page that you believe to be in error? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
Check out http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48331-2003Mar29.html If all the Iraqi farmers/civilians have half this guy's stash... -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 08:50:50AM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: >Here's an interesting site about the FCF > > http://www.politicalamazon.com/fcf.html Interesting, but mostly insanely wrong. Written by someone who is a hardcore leftist, it seems, and heavily slanted. I know the folks at FCF, and they're not mass murderers, racists, xenophobes, or guilty of the other allegations the author makes. They are, however, law-and-order conservatives with ties to Ashcroft whose alerts can serve as useful advance warnings. -Declan
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
At 18:42 -0500 2003/03/29, Declan McCullagh wrote: >I went to the Timonium hamfest and computer show today (surprisingly >good, even with the rain). On the way back, listened to an NPR Baghdad >correspondent report that the mood in the city had subtly changed -- >basically that since Saddam didn't seem to be getting his ass kicked, >the locals now seem willing to fight, if not for Saddam himself, at >least for the sake of their country. Door-to-door: Let's do it! Last week on BBC World, I heard a British military analyst say that while in his teens he was willing to do almost anything to remove Thatcher from office, he would have gladly taken up arms in the defense of Britain if the army of another country tried to remove her from power. -- J. Eric Townsend -- jet spies com buy stuff, damnit: http://www.spies.com/jet/store.html
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 04:01:12PM -0800, jet wrote: > At 18:42 -0500 2003/03/29, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >I went to the Timonium hamfest and computer show today (surprisingly > >good, even with the rain). On the way back, listened to an NPR Baghdad > >correspondent report that the mood in the city had subtly changed -- > >basically that since Saddam didn't seem to be getting his ass kicked, > >the locals now seem willing to fight, if not for Saddam himself, at > >least for the sake of their country. Door-to-door: Let's do it! > > Last week on BBC World, I heard a British military analyst say that while in his > teens he was willing to do almost anything to remove Thatcher from office, he would > have gladly taken up arms in the defense of Britain if the army of another country > tried to remove her from power. Yeah, too bad they don't feel the same way about Ireland. The Irish have been trying to kick the Brits out for what, 400 years? At least. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Trials for those undermining the war effort?
On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 09:45 AM, 'Gabriel Rocha' wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, at 10:27AM, Sunder wrote: | Um, watch your attributions, I didn't write that paragraph. :) My apologies, I wrote the paragraph below. Must have missed your attribution while deleting stuff. --Gabe We probably all ought to be very careful about who said what, versus who was quoting what, in these dangerous times. As we saw in the Bell and Johnson cases, courts are often careless about how e-mail is handled, with authorship often attributed by ignorant DAs to those merely quoting (and with rebuttal blocked by equally ignorant judges). If nothing else, the national security fascista may take a "Joe Blow said" as grounds for a no-knock raid, with pumped-up ninja soldiers anxious to deal with "those who undercut our boys in Iraq." The First Fascist is getting increasingly irritable about what the proles are saying, lashing out at reporters for undermining the war effort. The U.S. may be heading for massive losses along the Convoy of Death. Torrie Clark, spokesbimbo for the Defense Department, refers to Iraqis defending their country as "thugs." (As they may be, but this whole clusterfuck is showing the well-known problems with invading another country with strung-out supply lines and with urban/guerilla battles. We could all write for pages and pages on what's going wrong, so I won't.) To cut to the chase, several of my former friends are calling me a traitor and claiming to have reported me to the FBI for my statements about how the war machine ought to be hacked and undermined. This may be one of my famous "it could happen" statements which don't go as "predicted," but, like the Siege of Baghdad, life is unpredictable. To wit, it seems to me that a war-torn U.S., with a PATRIOT Act and a Homeland Security Act, plus a Congress more interested in debating child safety seats in SUVs during this crisis, plus a Supreme Court overseeing the repealing of the Bill of Rights, may very well lash out and those seen as a "Fifth Column" in their Iraq fiasco. Daniel Ellsberg was not successfully prosecuted, nor was the "New York Times" successfully enjoined, in 1971's "Pentagon Papers" case. Different times. A different court. Today, would such a dismissal of charge and failure to enjoin occur? I think not. We may see some major prosecutions of alleged sedition and treason. (Recall that Eugene Debs, a very public figure, was convicted and imprisoned for speaking out against forced enslavement of free persons into an army butting in in Europe. Speaking out, not bombing, not derailing trains, just speaking. So much for the First Amendment. This was one of many disgraces in American history.) I expect Homeland Security to push to prosecute similar cases. --Tim May "They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." --Rep. Ron Paul, TX, on how few Congresscritters saw the USA-PATRIOT Bill before voting overwhelmingly to impose a police state
