[Winstonm]

It's this kind of crapola that influences the beliefs of many evangelical Protestants. both men and women:

Quote

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

Can't even make the tired argument about old verses new as these are New Testament verses.

[barmar]

 hrothgar, on 2017-November-16, 12:17, said:

There's also that whole Virgin birth thing that the same group of yahoos also insist upon

That one's good for the jokes, but I don't really consider it relevant. Even if they weren't having sex, they were a couple.

But the simple fact is that there are lots of things that used to be common but are not acceptable in modern society. In "Fiddler on the Roof", Yentl the Matchmaker tries to pair up Tevye's young daughters with elderly businessmen.

And there's that whole slavery thing.

And if we're going to look to the Bible for moral inspiration, does that mean that if a wife can't get pregnant it's OK for the husband to bang the maid? Supposedly, the son he had from this, Ishmael, is the patriarch of Islam.

[Cyberyeti]

 barmar, on 2017-November-17, 09:58, said:

But the simple fact is that there are lots of things that used to be common but are not acceptable in modern society. In "Fiddler on the Roof", Yentl the Matchmaker tries to pair up Tevye's young daughters with elderly businessmen.

Depends which society. It still goes on, we now have laws in the UK to deal with a situation where marriages were arranged in the South Asian community between young British Asian girls and much older cousins back in India or Pakistan so the men could get into the UK.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2017-November-16, 10:00, said:

To be fair, many of his supporters are simply taking his word that it never happened, and that the accusations are false.

Others say that it happened so long ago that it shouldn't be an issue now.

Only a few actually say that it doesn't matter (like the one who compared it to Joseph and Mary -- never mind that things were very different 2000 years ago, when life was shorter and it was routine to marry off daughters one they went through puberty and could start having babies).

With regard ot the Biblical idea, Alexandra Petri had a column a few days back where she noted "Furthermore, in the Bible, Cain murdered Abel, and no one had told Cain he could not hold elected office, which just showed that there was precedent in the Good Book for this sort of thing."

And although I could not find the column, I think it was Kathleen Parker who, in response to the idea that Joseph did it with Mary, observed that this is in contradiction to a certain theological view about Mary's pregnancy.

For me it brings to mind a Bat Mitzvah I was at a couple of years back. The girl's father spoke and observed that by Jewish law she was, at 13, old enough to marry. And then "Your father has other ideas". Indeed.

[barmar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-November-17, 11:40, said:

Depends which society. It still goes on, we now have laws in the UK to deal with a situation where marriages were arranged in the South Asian community between young British Asian girls and much older cousins back in India or Pakistan so the men could get into the UK.

Like I said, "modern" society. Those cultures are still living in the dark ages.

[y66]

From Timothy Egan's op-ed in today's NYT:

Quote

It would be much easier to sleep at night if you could believe that we’re in such a mess of misinformation simply because Russian agents disseminated inflammatory posts that reached 126 million people on Facebook.

The Russians also uploaded a thousand videos to YouTube and published more than 130,000 messages on Twitter about last year’s election. As recent congressional hearings showed, the arteries of our democracy were clogged with toxins from a hostile foreign power.

But the problem is not the Russians — it’s us. We’re getting played because too many Americans are ill equipped to perform the basic functions of citizenship. If the point of the Russian campaign, aided domestically by right-wing media, was to get people to think there is no such thing as knowable truth, the bad guys have won.

As we crossed the 300-day mark of Donald Trump’s presidency on Thursday, fact-checkers noted that he has made more than 1,600 false or misleading claims. Good God. At least five times a day, on average, this president says something that isn’t true.

We have a White House of lies because a huge percentage of the population can’t tell fact from fiction. But a huge percentage is also clueless about the basic laws of the land. In a democracy, we the people are supposed to understand our role in this power-sharing thing.

Nearly one in three Americans cannot name a single branch of government. When NPR tweeted out sections of the Declaration of Independence last year, many people were outraged. They mistook Thomas Jefferson’s fighting words for anti-Trump propaganda.

Fake news is a real thing produced by active disseminators of falsehoods. Trump uses the term to describe anything he doesn’t like, a habit now picked up by political liars everywhere.

But Trump is a symptom; the breakdown in this democracy goes beyond the liar in chief. For that you have to blame all of us: we have allowed the educational system to become negligent in teaching the owner’s manual of citizenship.

Lost in the news grind over Roy Moore, the lawbreaking Senate candidate from Alabama, is how often he has tried to violate the Constitution. As a judge, he was removed from the bench — twice — for lawless acts that follow his theocratic view of governance.

Shariah law has been justifiably criticized as a dangerous injection of religion into the public space. Now imagine if a judge insisted on keeping a monument to the Quran in a state judicial building. Or that he said “homosexual conduct” should be illegal because his sacred book tells him so. That is exactly what Moore has done, though he substitutes the Bible for the Quran.

I don’t blame Moore. I blame his followers, and the press, which doesn’t seem to know that the First Amendment specifically aims to keep government from siding with one religion — the so-called establishment clause.

My colleagues at the opinion shop on Sunday used a full page to print the Bill of Rights, and urge President Trump to “Please Read the Constitution.” Yes, it’s come to this. On press freedom, due process, exercise of religion and other areas, Trump has repeatedly gone into Roy Moore territory — dismissing the principles he has sworn to uphold.

Suppose we treated citizenship like getting a driver’s license. People would have to pass a simple test on American values, history and geography before they were allowed to have a say in the system. We do that for immigrants, and 97 percent of them pass, according to one study.

Yet one in three Americans fail the immigrant citizenship test. This is not an elitist barrier. The test includes questions like, “What major event happened on 9/11?” and “What ocean is on the West Coast of the United States?”

One reason that public schools were established across the land was to produce an informed citizenry. And up until the 1960s, it was common for students to take three separate courses in civics and government before they got out of high school.

Now only a handful of states require proficiency in civics as a condition of high school graduation. Students are hungry, in this turbulent era, for discussion of politics and government. But the educators are failing them. Civics has fallen to the side, in part because of the standardized test mania.

A related concern is historical ignorance. By a 48 percent to 38 percent margin Americans think states’ rights, rather than slavery, caused the Civil War. So Trump’s chief of staff, John F. Kelly, can say something demonstrably false about the war, because most people are just as clueless as he is.

There’s hope — and there are many ways — to shed light on the cave of American democracy. More than a dozen states now require high school students to pass the immigrant citizenship test. We should also teach kids how to tell fake news from real, as some schools in Europe are doing.

But those initiatives will mean little if people still insist on believing what they want to believe, living in digital safe spaces closed off from anything that intrudes on their worldview.

Will the Water Cooler save us?

[StevenG]

“It is the nature of an hypothesis, when once a man has conceived it, that it assimulates every thing to itself as proper nourishment; and, from the first moment of your begetting it, it generally grows the stronger by every thing you see, hear, read, or understand.”

Sterne, Tristram Shandy

[Winstonm]

 y66, on 2017-November-18, 14:26, said:

From Timothy Egan's op-ed in today's NYT:


Will the Water Cooler save us?

No, and it's a damn shame Pogo died.

Quote

We have met the enemy and he is us.

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2017-November-18, 14:26, said:

From Timothy Egan's op-ed in today's NYT:


Will the Water Cooler save us?

An interesting post. And, being my difficult self, I will comment on a couple of items.

Quote

Suppose we treated citizenship like getting a driver's license. People would have to pass a simple test on American values, history and geography before they were allowed to have a say in the system. We do that for immigrants, and 97 percent of them pass, according to one study.

Ok, .Imagine this is put forth as a proposal. Before being allowed to have a say in the system, for example by voting, everyone has to pass a test. Oh yes, many states used to do that. Oh, but those were bad tests, designed to keep certain demographics from voting and moreover they were unevenly applied. So suppose we make sure that it is a fair test, fairly applied. It would still disenfranchise many people. Are we ok with that? Hint: We currently find it very unfair to insist that someone actually register to vote before the day of voting. Registering to vote probably is considerably less demanding than preparing for and taking an exam on history and civics.

Quote

One reason that public schools were established across the land was to produce an informed citizenry. And up until the 1960s, it was common for students to take three separate courses in civics and government before they got out of high school.

I am not sure how many "civics classes" i took in high school. I can only recall one that was actually called "civics". Yes, we studied civics. But I was in the college prep track. Incidentally, nobody asked me if I wanted to be in the college prep track, they just put me there. There were kids in the non-college prep class and kids who, at least in their last two years, spent have a day in the high school and half at vocational training. I don't think they did civics at the voc-tech place. Probably it was English and History at the high school. Maybe a little math.

I have often felt that at the least someone who wishes to vote should be able to say who is on the ballot. Some can't. But where to draw the line? I voted for the first time in 1960. I tried to understand about the missile gap and the off-shore islands, but I had gotten married in June, I was working about 50-55 hours a week in the summer, and I was starting graduate school in the fall. I was not prepared to pass an exam about Quemoy and Matsu. And I was 21, the voting age at the time. How about when I was 18? I would not want the future of the country to depend on my judgment..


Here is a basic fact: Most people vote with only a limited understanding of the candidates and the issues. By "most people" I very definitely include myself. Some know more, some know less, some know almost nothing,. This is not a new fact, and is not something that will ever completely go away..

This does not, of course, mean that we should give it all up as hopeless. We can do better. And we must. But we should not live in a dreamworld either of what is possible or of what once was.

[y66]

Tim Egan and the NYT have nothing on some WC posters. I feel sure Egan would agree with kenberg's points and that they both agree the system is broken and in need of major repairs.

Will the WC save us? IMO, it's helping. But even the WC can't stop what's coming as this thread clearly shows.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2017-November-18, 18:54, said:

I am not sure how many "civics classes" i took in high school. I can only recall one that was actually called "civics".

When I was in school in the 60's and 70's, we called it "Social Studies" and "History".

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2017-November-19, 12:45, said:

When I was in school in the 60's and 70's, we called it "Social Studies" and "History".

Right. I studied history in many grades. I would complain that we always started with the **&%* pilgrims and so never had time to get into the 20th century. And we had other courses in which we learned the basics of civics. How much did I learn? Well, I liked history and civics so I learned a bit. The basics.


I recently saw an observation that I had never thought of about slaves being counted as 3/5 of a person. Symbolically it is awful, and reflects the views of the times. But strategically, it would have been better for the South if they were counted as 5/5 of a person. The slaves were not going to be allowed to vote, so the main effect is representation in the House of Representatives. Therefore you want the population of your region to be seen to be as large as you can make it. Take a region with 100,000 white males with no slaves. And compare it with a region with 90,000 white males and 30,000 slaves. The population of the slave area is counted as 90,000+ 18,000 =108,000. This could tip the balance toward getting one more seat in the House. With more slaves, it becomes even more likely. So it was not opnly that the slaves were not free, and not only that they could not vote, also their owners got larger representation in Congress than they would have had if the slaves were not counted at all in the census.

Whatever one thinks of this observation, it never came up in any of my classes. Apparently this is correct history. The South wanted slaves counted as 5/5 for the purpose of representation, the North did not want them counted at all.

Another thought: John Kelley has taken some heat for saying that lack of compromise led to the civil war when all right thinking people know that it was slavery. But as a child I was taught that all right thinking people know that God created the Earth and the heavens and all above and below, is six days. In fact the writing of the Constitution involved compromise. Of course it did, and one of the compromises was on slavery. By the time of Lincoln there was less inclination to compromise on this issue.There had been many previous compromises. So I think the correct statement is that the Civil War came about largley because the nation was no longer able to find acceptable compromises on slavery. As faras I know, the North had no intention of invading Georgia to free the slaves, but the North was prepared to stop the spread of slavery. I certainly fault Kelley for not being explicit about just how and about what compromise was no longer possible, but the lack of compromise was indeed involved.

Which brings up an interesting thought experiment. Imagine the year to be 1787 and you are in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. The plan is to bring together the loosely knit former colonies to create the new United States of America. There are lots of reasons for wanting to do this. You are appalled by slavery, but if the South is to join in the Union, slavery cannot be abolished in the new USA. You get to vote, and people admire you and look to you for guidance. You will say and do what? Personally, I am glad I never had that responsibility. With my 21st century life tog uide me, I might well have told the South to go from their own union, we in the North would form ours, and without slavery. But would I really? Good question. I can think of few things more repulsive than one person owning another, no matter how the owner treats the person he owns. But I do like the USA. So???

And yes, Y, I think Egan and I agree at least basically. I suspect we would even agree that it is all more complicated than his piece makes it out to be.

[barmar]

This WaPo article has some good information about the "compromise vs slavery" issue.

The North and South did make attempts to compromise before war broke out. But the secession wasn't because they weren't able to compromise, it was because the South could see where things were headed. Even if they compromised about the spread of slavery to new states, they could see that the abolitionists would keep trying to take their slaves away. The only way they could see to keep their slaves in perpetuity was to form their own nation where slavery was fully legal.

[rmnka447]

 kenberg, on 2017-November-19, 19:15, said:

Right. I studied history in many grades. I would complain that we always started with the **&%* pilgrims and so never had time to get into the 20th century. And we had other courses in which we learned the basics of civics. How much did I learn? Well, I liked history and civics so I learned a bit. The basics.


I recently saw an observation that I had never thought of about slaves being counted as 3/5 of a person. Symbolically it is awful, and reflects the views of the times. But strategically, it would have been better for the South if they were counted as 5/5 of a person. The slaves were not going to be allowed to vote, so the main effect is representation in the House of Representatives. Therefore you want the population of your region to be seen to be as large as you can make it. Take a region with 100,000 white males with no slaves. And compare it with a region with 90,000 white males and 30,000 slaves. The population of the slave area is counted as 90,000+ 18,000 =108,000. This could tip the balance toward getting one more seat in the House. With more slaves, it becomes even more likely. So it was not opnly that the slaves were not free, and not only that they could not vote, also their owners got larger representation in Congress than they would have had if the slaves were not counted at all in the census.

Whatever one thinks of this observation, it never came up in any of my classes. Apparently this is correct history. The South wanted slaves counted as 5/5 for the purpose of representation, the North did not want them counted at all.

Another thought: John Kelley has taken some heat for saying that lack of compromise led to the civil war when all right thinking people know that it was slavery. But as a child I was taught that all right thinking people know that God created the Earth and the heavens and all above and below, is six days. In fact the writing of the Constitution involved compromise. Of course it did, and one of the compromises was on slavery. By the time of Lincoln there was less inclination to compromise on this issue.There had been many previous compromises. So I think the correct statement is that the Civil War came about largley because the nation was no longer able to find acceptable compromises on slavery. As faras I know, the North had no intention of invading Georgia to free the slaves, but the North was prepared to stop the spread of slavery. I certainly fault Kelley for not being explicit about just how and about what compromise was no longer possible, but the lack of compromise was indeed involved.

Which brings up an interesting thought experiment. Imagine the year to be 1787 and you are in Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. The plan is to bring together the loosely knit former colonies to create the new United States of America. There are lots of reasons for wanting to do this. You are appalled by slavery, but if the South is to join in the Union, slavery cannot be abolished in the new USA. You get to vote, and people admire you and look to you for guidance. You will say and do what? Personally, I am glad I never had that responsibility. With my 21st century life tog uide me, I might well have told the South to go from their own union, we in the North would form ours, and without slavery. But would I really? Good question. I can think of few things more repulsive than one person owning another, no matter how the owner treats the person he owns. But I do like the USA. So???

And yes, Y, I think Egan and I agree at least basically. I suspect we would even agree that it is all more complicated than his piece makes it out to be.

At the end of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a Philadelphian anxious to learn the results of the Convention allegedly approached Ben Franklin and asked "What kind of government will we have?" Franklin replied "We'll have a Republic, Sir, if we can keep it." It may be a myth, legend, or whatever but the words still ring true today.

I think the Founding Fathers realized that the only practical course was to compromise and remain united. If instead two or more "countries" would have been formed, they may not individually have had enough strength to withstand a second takeover from Great Britain. As wise old Ben had said earlier at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, for if we don't, we must all surely hang separately."

This was also one of the big concerns of Abraham Lincoln about the Confederacy. He was worried about the ability of two American countries to coexist in peace and without European interference. It was problematic to him if either country could survive and prosper. He famously said at the beginning of the Civil War that if he could maintain the Union without freeing one slave he would do so. But I think he knew that was impossible. He had said as much in the famous "house divided" speech many years earlier during the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The gist of that speech was that the country couldn't continue to exist "half slave and half free" but eventually had to be one way or the other. It ended with the summation "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The war began as an effort to restore the full Union, but eventually morphed into a war to end slavery. In the end, we did both.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2017-November-20, 08:56, said:

This WaPo article has some good information about the "compromise vs slavery" issue.

The North and South did make attempts to compromise before war broke out. But the secession wasn't because they weren't able to compromise, it was because the South could see where things were headed. Even if they compromised about the spread of slavery to new states, they could see that the abolitionists would keep trying to take their slaves away. The only way they could see to keep their slaves in perpetuity was to form their own nation where slavery was fully legal.

I am not sure what to make of this. Kelley said "But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War"

One thing that the historians make clear in this article is that Kelley is an ignoramus. They cite sever facts, some reproduced below.

Quote

The idea that compromise might have been possible was rejected out of hand by McCurry and Blight.

Quote

“Any serious person who knows anything about this,” Blight said, “can look at the late 1850s and then the secession crisis and know that they tried all kinds of compromise measures during the secession winter, and nothing worked. Nothing was viable.”

Quote

“In 1861, compromise wasn’t possible because some Southerners just wanted out. They wanted a separate nation where they could protect slavery into the indefinite future,”

So my question to these guys: Is Kelley an idiot because he said "But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War" or is he an idiot because he does not know as the historians assure that anyone not a total ignoramus does know, that compromise was impossible.

It seems to me that compromises about slavery that were possible in 1787 were not possible in 1860. I very definitely fault Kelley for not being specific about what sort of compromises failed in 1860, but when he says that the lack of ability to compromise led to the Civil War these guys seem to be agreeing with him.

rmnka447 quotes Lincoln, I believe the quotation [with "he"->"I"] is historical fact, that " if he could maintain the Union without freeing one slave he would do so". Assuming that he meant it, this would be a substantial compromise. And actually it is along the lines of my suggested thought experiment. But this was not acceptable. It sounds as if Lincoln is saying that compromise is not possible. A lot of people past and present seem to be in agreement that compromise was not possible.

But yes, the compromise would have been about slavery, and it was no longer possible to compromise on that. For Kelley to bemoan, as he did, the lack of ability to compromise without saying what compromises he thinks should have occurred is disingenuous. But he was not wrong about the lack of compromise. And I very much doubt he is an idiot, although I cannot imagine what would induce any person to agree to work with or for Trump.

[ldrews]

Quote

I cannot imagine what would induce any person to agree to work with or for Trump.

Shows lack of imagination.

For example, Democratic think tank comes up with method to revitalize inner city education in a way that Trump likes, Trump picks it up and forms a special task force to implement, Would you not work with such a task force because Trump initiated it?

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-November-20, 11:50, said:

I am not sure what to make of this. Kelley said "But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War"

One thing that the historians make clear in this article is that Kelley is an ignoramus. They cite sever facts, some reproduced below.








So my question to these guys: Is Kelley an idiot because he said "But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War" or is he an idiot because he does not know as the historians assure that anyone not a total ignoramus does know, that compromise was impossible.

It seems to me that compromises about slavery that were possible in 1787 were not possible in 1860. I very definitely fault Kelley for not being specific about what sort of compromises failed in 1860, but when he says that the lack of ability to compromise led to the Civil War these guys seem to be agreeing with him.

rmnka447 quotes Lincoln, I believe the quotation [with "he"->"I"] is historical fact, that " if he could maintain the Union without freeing one slave he would do so". Assuming that he meant it, this would be a substantial compromise. And actually it is along the lines of my suggested thought experiment. But this was not acceptable. It sounds as if Lincoln is saying that compromise is not possible. A lot of people past and present seem to be in agreement that compromise was not possible.

But yes, the compromise would have been about slavery, and it was no longer possible to compromise on that. For Kelley to bemoan, as he did, the lack of ability to compromise without saying what compromises he thinks should have occurred is disingenuous. But he was not wrong about the lack of compromise. And I very much doubt he is an idiot, although I cannot imagine what would induce any person to agree to work with or for Trump.

If Kelley is as smart as advertised, why did he join the Marine Corps?

[kenberg]

 ldrews, on 2017-November-20, 12:14, said:

Shows lack of imagination.

For example, Democratic think tank comes up with method to revitalize inner city education in a way that Trump likes, Trump picks it up and forms a special task force to implement, Would you not work with such a task force because Trump initiated it?

Oh, I suppose I overstate by a bit. I see hin as someone who overpraises, just terrific, really great, unbelievably good, until there is trouble and then watch out. Not my sort of guy as you know by now.

The problem won't arise in practice. He wouldn't choose me for dog catcher, I wouldn't choose him. So we can each safely go our own way.

And Kelley? I think he accepted the job through patriotism. But he had better watch out. Trump grinds people to dust.

[cherdano]

So, other than bashing Hillary, or senior politicians who just defied him, Donald Trump has picked up twitter fights with LaVar Ball, Jeleme Hill, Colin Kaepernick, Steph Curry, Marshawn Lynch, Myeshia Johnson, Frederica Wilson.
I wonder what those people have in common.

I also wait for Ken to explain me why the world is a better place if we don't call it what it is - either Trump is racist, or he is trying to get the support of racists. Or, my own guess, both.

[ldrews]

 cherdano, on 2017-November-20, 18:25, said:

So, other than bashing Hillary, or senior politicians who just defied him, Donald Trump has picked up twitter fights with LaVar Ball, Jeleme Hill, Colin Kaepernick, Steph Curry, Marshawn Lynch, Myeshia Johnson, Frederica Wilson.
I wonder what those people have in common.

I also wait for Ken to explain me why the world is a better place if we don't call it what it is - either Trump is racist, or he is trying to get the support of racists. Or, my own guess, both.

It seems to me that LaVar Ball is an ungracious asshole. Perhaps that is what they all have in common. I know that if Obama had kept my son from spending 10 years in a Chinese jail I would kiss his ass as often as he wanted.