On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 12:58:17 PM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <o5barits503f8idq3...@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> > On 27 Jan 2024 00:49:42 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >
> > >Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >>Catholics use terms such as "consistent life ethic" and "seamless garment"=
> > >>to explain being anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty. As an ex-Catholic=
> > >>Libertarian I agree with the latter position and understand the former. I=
> > >>similarly pick and choose what I like in Catholic Social Teaching. I'm a=20
> > >>big fan of the principle of subsidiarity, for example....=20
> > >
> > >It makes a lot of sense. How can someone call themselves "pro-life" and
> > >be in favor of carpet-bombing other countries? That is a pro-death stance,
> > >not pro-life.
> > >
> > >I am not pro-life. For one thing, I believe that there is a time and place
> > >for assisted suicide. But I have respect for the few people who really are.
> > >
> > >>The various debates around the US about what, if any, regulations there
> > >>ought to be on abortion actually are in line with subsidiarity and
> > >>federalism.
> > >>US pols tend to support distributed, federal solutions to social issues
> > >>when
> > >>it suits them, and national, one-size-fits-all rules when _that_ suits
> > >>them.
> > >
> > >My father was of the belief that parents should be able to abort children
> > >until they reached the age of 18.
> >
> > That's actually /very/ traditional. The Romans living in classical
> > times would have agreed with him.
> I am under the impression that 18 wasn't the upper age limit for Roman
> fathers.

Catalina was accused of the murder of his son. It never went to court,
as that wouldn't have been useful to the accusers, but nobody seems to
have said he had a right to do so.

In a technical sense all Romans were their fathers' slaves - there was even
a special ceremony by which a father could manumit his children.

William Hyde

On 28/01/2024 03:58, kludge@panix.com wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> That's because the whole "against the word of God" approach is part of
>> a bigger problem, where only /some/ parts are considered valid, while
>> others can be freely ignored.
>>
>> This is a step on the road from "I do what God says" to "God does what
>> I say".
>
> Many people wish to serve God, but only in an advisory capacity.

As long as their god follows *their* advice, no doubt.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:03:06 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 12:58:17?PM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> In article <o5barits503f8idq3...@4ax.com>,
>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> > On 27 Jan 2024 00:49:42 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> >
>> > >Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > >>Catholics use terms such as "consistent life ethic" and "seamless garment"=
>> > >>to explain being anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty. As an ex-Catholic=
>> > >>Libertarian I agree with the latter position and understand the former. I=
>> > >>similarly pick and choose what I like in Catholic Social Teaching. I'm a=20
>> > >>big fan of the principle of subsidiarity, for example....=20
>> > >
>> > >It makes a lot of sense. How can someone call themselves "pro-life" and
>> > >be in favor of carpet-bombing other countries? That is a pro-death stance,
>> > >not pro-life.
>> > >
>> > >I am not pro-life. For one thing, I believe that there is a time and place
>> > >for assisted suicide. But I have respect for the few people who really are.
>> > >
>> > >>The various debates around the US about what, if any, regulations there
>> > >>ought to be on abortion actually are in line with subsidiarity and
>> > >>federalism.
>> > >>US pols tend to support distributed, federal solutions to social issues
>> > >>when
>> > >>it suits them, and national, one-size-fits-all rules when _that_ suits
>> > >>them.
>> > >
>> > >My father was of the belief that parents should be able to abort children
>> > >until they reached the age of 18.
>> >
>> > That's actually /very/ traditional. The Romans living in classical
>> > times would have agreed with him.
>> I am under the impression that 18 wasn't the upper age limit for Roman
>> fathers.
>
>Catalina was accused of the murder of his son. It never went to court,
>as that wouldn't have been useful to the accusers, but nobody seems to
>have said he had a right to do so.
>
>In a technical sense all Romans were their fathers' slaves - there was even
>a special ceremony by which a father could manumit his children.

Keep in mind that Ancient Rome lasted ... a long, long time.

The adjective "liber" ("free") was also used as a masculine noun for
"boy" -- because boys would eventually be free. Girls, of course,
never were, in accordance with the Most Basic Rule of Traditional
Family Values:

women are cattle

but the boys eventually were, indeed, freed. At one point, IIRC, "put
on the manly toga" was the phrase used to mark the point of freedom.

But we may be talking about slightly different customs at slighly
different periods in Rome's history.

Certainly (well, per, IIRC, Durant) in the 3rd century AD those pesky
Christians had enough votes in the Senate to pass a law that,
henceforth, a Roman pater familias had to have a /reason to do so/
before he could kill one of his children.

Thus began the long decline of Traditional Family Values.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 11:05:11 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:03:06 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 12:58:17?PM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
> >> In article <o5barits503f8idq3...@4ax.com>,
> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >> > On 27 Jan 2024 00:49:42 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> > >>Catholics use terms such as "consistent life ethic" and "seamless garment"=
> >> > >>to explain being anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty. As an ex-Catholic=
> >> > >>Libertarian I agree with the latter position and understand the former. I=
> >> > >>similarly pick and choose what I like in Catholic Social Teaching. I'm a=20
> >> > >>big fan of the principle of subsidiarity, for example....=20
> >> > >
> >> > >It makes a lot of sense. How can someone call themselves "pro-life" and
> >> > >be in favor of carpet-bombing other countries? That is a pro-death stance,
> >> > >not pro-life.
> >> > >
> >> > >I am not pro-life. For one thing, I believe that there is a time and place
> >> > >for assisted suicide. But I have respect for the few people who really are.
> >> > >
> >> > >>The various debates around the US about what, if any, regulations there
> >> > >>ought to be on abortion actually are in line with subsidiarity and
> >> > >>federalism.
> >> > >>US pols tend to support distributed, federal solutions to social issues
> >> > >>when
> >> > >>it suits them, and national, one-size-fits-all rules when _that_ suits
> >> > >>them.
> >> > >
> >> > >My father was of the belief that parents should be able to abort children
> >> > >until they reached the age of 18.
> >> >
> >> > That's actually /very/ traditional. The Romans living in classical
> >> > times would have agreed with him.
> >> I am under the impression that 18 wasn't the upper age limit for Roman
> >> fathers.
> >
> >Catalina was accused of the murder of his son. It never went to court,
> >as that wouldn't have been useful to the accusers, but nobody seems to
> >have said he had a right to do so.
> >
> >In a technical sense all Romans were their fathers' slaves - there was even
> >a special ceremony by which a father could manumit his children.
> Keep in mind that Ancient Rome lasted ... a long, long time.
>
> The adjective "liber" ("free") was also used as a masculine noun for
> "boy" -- because boys would eventually be free. Girls, of course,
> never were, in accordance with the Most Basic Rule of Traditional
> Family Values:
>
> women are cattle
>
> but the boys eventually were, indeed, freed. At one point, IIRC, "put
> on the manly toga" was the phrase used to mark the point of freedom.

This was a coming of age ceremony and did not free them from their father's
"Patira Potestas". Or their paternal grandfather's, if he was alive.

As you implied, the power varied in time and was strongest in the early
republic. It waned over the centuries and Augustus weakened it
further. Apparently (news to me) it still existed in the time of
Justinian though I've no idea whether it had any actual practical
significance by then.

A man could vote, run for office, command legions, while still formally not free from his father.
In theory none of the money he earned was his own, but in practice that was abandoned
(if it was ever enforced) fairly soon after the founding of the republic.

The power extended to wives, adopted children and all descendants in the male
line.

Aside from the father freeing a son (who would then become a paterfamilias in the
legal sense, even if he was without children) escape from a father's power came
if either father or son was exiled, the father declared insane, by the son becoming
a priest of Mars or the daughter becoming a vestal.

But the restrictions on the life of a priest of Mars, at least in the highest rank, were
far worse than the burden of a father's power. And girls didn't have much choice
about becoming Vestals.

> But we may be talking about slightly different customs at slighly
> different periods in Rome's history.
>
> Certainly (well, per, IIRC, Durant) in the 3rd century AD those pesky
> Christians had enough votes in the Senate to pass a law that,

In the fourth century, possibly. Though the senate would not pass any
law that the Emperor didn't approve of first. And as Constantine
murdered his eldest son, it probably wasn't passed until he went
to his eternal punishment.

> henceforth, a Roman pater familias had to have a /reason to do so/
> before he could kill one of his children.

I can't recall any example of this power being used to kill an adult child
after the early republic. Refusing to accept newborns, on the other hand,
was a custom that lasted much longer and I've no idea when it was
abandoned.

William Hyde

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 13:30:55 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 11:05:11?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:03:06 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 12:58:17?PM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> >> In article <o5barits503f8idq3...@4ax.com>,
>> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > On 27 Jan 2024 00:49:42 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> > >>Catholics use terms such as "consistent life ethic" and "seamless garment"=
>> >> > >>to explain being anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty. As an ex-Catholic=
>> >> > >>Libertarian I agree with the latter position and understand the former. I=
>> >> > >>similarly pick and choose what I like in Catholic Social Teaching. I'm a=20
>> >> > >>big fan of the principle of subsidiarity, for example....=20
>> >> > >
>> >> > >It makes a lot of sense. How can someone call themselves "pro-life" and
>> >> > >be in favor of carpet-bombing other countries? That is a pro-death stance,
>> >> > >not pro-life.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >I am not pro-life. For one thing, I believe that there is a time and place
>> >> > >for assisted suicide. But I have respect for the few people who really are.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >>The various debates around the US about what, if any, regulations there
>> >> > >>ought to be on abortion actually are in line with subsidiarity and
>> >> > >>federalism.
>> >> > >>US pols tend to support distributed, federal solutions to social issues
>> >> > >>when
>> >> > >>it suits them, and national, one-size-fits-all rules when _that_ suits
>> >> > >>them.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >My father was of the belief that parents should be able to abort children
>> >> > >until they reached the age of 18.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's actually /very/ traditional. The Romans living in classical
>> >> > times would have agreed with him.
>> >> I am under the impression that 18 wasn't the upper age limit for Roman
>> >> fathers.
>> >
>> >Catalina was accused of the murder of his son. It never went to court,
>> >as that wouldn't have been useful to the accusers, but nobody seems to
>> >have said he had a right to do so.
>> >
>> >In a technical sense all Romans were their fathers' slaves - there was even
>> >a special ceremony by which a father could manumit his children.
>> Keep in mind that Ancient Rome lasted ... a long, long time.
>>
>> The adjective "liber" ("free") was also used as a masculine noun for
>> "boy" -- because boys would eventually be free. Girls, of course,
>> never were, in accordance with the Most Basic Rule of Traditional
>> Family Values:
>>
>> women are cattle
>>
>> but the boys eventually were, indeed, freed. At one point, IIRC, "put
>> on the manly toga" was the phrase used to mark the point of freedom.
>
>This was a coming of age ceremony and did not free them from their father's
>"Patira Potestas". Or their paternal grandfather's, if he was alive.
>
>As you implied, the power varied in time and was strongest in the early
>republic. It waned over the centuries and Augustus weakened it
>further. Apparently (news to me) it still existed in the time of
>Justinian though I've no idea whether it had any actual practical
>significance by then.
>
>
>A man could vote, run for office, command legions, while still formally not free from his father.
>In theory none of the money he earned was his own, but in practice that was abandoned
>(if it was ever enforced) fairly soon after the founding of the republic.
>
>The power extended to wives, adopted children and all descendants in the male
>line.
>
>Aside from the father freeing a son (who would then become a paterfamilias in the
>legal sense, even if he was without children) escape from a father's power came
>if either father or son was exiled, the father declared insane, by the son becoming
>a priest of Mars or the daughter becoming a vestal.
>
>But the restrictions on the life of a priest of Mars, at least in the highest rank, were
>far worse than the burden of a father's power. And girls didn't have much choice
>about becoming Vestals.
>
>> But we may be talking about slightly different customs at slighly
>> different periods in Rome's history.
>>
>> Certainly (well, per, IIRC, Durant) in the 3rd century AD those pesky
>> Christians had enough votes in the Senate to pass a law that,
>
>In the fourth century, possibly. Though the senate would not pass any
>law that the Emperor didn't approve of first. And as Constantine
>murdered his eldest son, it probably wasn't passed until he went
>to his eternal punishment.
>
>> henceforth, a Roman pater familias had to have a /reason to do so/
>> before he could kill one of his children.
>
>I can't recall any example of this power being used to kill an adult child
>after the early republic. Refusing to accept newborns, on the other hand,
>was a custom that lasted much longer and I've no idea when it was
>abandoned.

When, where, and as the Christians gained influence. This is because
they believed that /every/ child was a gift from God. Regardless of
gender, birth defects, or sickliness.

The "anti-abortion" citations from the Church Fathers were mostly
"anti-female-infanticide" passages. There was no need for Christians
to argue in opposition to abortion -- Roman society did so all on its
own.

As did the Greeks: the Hippocartic Oath had doctors committing to
never providing a potion to procure an abortion.

As a property crime: the unborn child was the /property/ of the Pater
Familias and abortion deprived him of his rightful property. It had
nothing to do with it being alive, never mind a human being, before it
was born.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>responses to you post have noted.

Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
a Christian is supposed to be.

>>I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?

The line above on woke vs anti-woke makes sense but wasn't my point.
MLK is also documented as a man who had trouble keeping his zipper
under control.

>Well, you may agree that Trump is not woke in any sense.=20
>
>I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
>(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
>female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
>cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
>in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.

Farbeit that antebellum Southrons are considered 19th century examples
of what people of faith were supposed to be like.

As for LGBT etc a LOT of straight people dislike the term since many
of the wokesters will go ballistic if one includes or excludes the
right letters. For that one is damned forever in these folks' eyes. I
know one guy (he and I are both regulars at our city council) who is
in a 30+ year gay relationship and he knows I'm not interested in it
so mostly we ignore it except the few times he slips - which I
occasionally do when mentioning my children to make a political point.

(Most recently about the skyrocketing cost of housing - there was a
case locally here recently where a husband and wife pair of MDs got
turned down for a mortgage due to income that hit the news to the
effect that 'if THEY can't get a mortgage who can?!?")

On 24 Jan 2024 21:28:03 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Many who are basically say that because Trump put "conservatives" on
>the Supreme Court to eliminate Roe vs. Wade that they are on his side because
>this is more important to them than anything else in the world. I find this
>very strange, seeing that until fairly recently the anti-abortion movement was
>a Catholic thing and evangelicals specifically avoided the issue in order to
>distinguish themselves from those evil Catholics.

Evangelicals have historically been every bit as 'solid' on abortion
as have Catholics but tend not to talk about it much.

Someone like Clarence Thomas got nominated as he was a black jurist
who could be counted on to vote the way the president wanted. The fact
that Dubya appointed him is no more shocking than if a Democrat
president had nominated a left leaning jurist for the SCOTUS.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 00:36:44 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:

>About either of those, I care nothing. I'll be voting for
>Nikki Haley in the primary and (hopefully) in November,
>and there is no white person on this planet that I'd even
>consider for a moment voting for if he were running against
>Thomas Sowell.

I agree Sowell is one of the finest men of his generation but I'm
uncertain whether he'd be a good president. After all I thought much
the same about Jimmy Carter before he was elected and for many of us
he was a terrible disappointment.

That said Haley isn't white as you undoubtedly know. I can't speak for
Americans but in Canada Sikhs aren't considered white. And no question
Sarah Palin isn't fit to tie Haley's shoelaces. But then nor are 95%
of American politicians

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>>traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>>responses to you post have noted.
>
>Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
>guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
>him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
>a Christian is supposed to be.

The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.

But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.

>>>I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?
>
>The line above on woke vs anti-woke makes sense but wasn't my point.
>MLK is also documented as a man who had trouble keeping his zipper
>under control.
>
>>Well, you may agree that Trump is not woke in any sense.=20
>>
>>I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
>>(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
>>female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
>>cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
>>in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
>
>Farbeit that antebellum Southrons are considered 19th century examples
>of what people of faith were supposed to be like.

/They/ certainly thought that they were.

In these discussions, I find the phrase "whitewashed tomb" keeps
occurring to me.

>As for LGBT etc a LOT of straight people dislike the term since many
>of the wokesters will go ballistic if one includes or excludes the
>right letters. For that one is damned forever in these folks' eyes. I
>know one guy (he and I are both regulars at our city council) who is
>in a 30+ year gay relationship and he knows I'm not interested in it
>so mostly we ignore it except the few times he slips - which I
>occasionally do when mentioning my children to make a political point.

I don't dislike it, but including the largest set of symbols I have
seen (as I did above) might be seen as a form of satire.

Not of the people, of course, just the ever-growing acronym. Although
I suppose the "+" at the end is supposed to keep any more letters from
being added.

>(Most recently about the skyrocketing cost of housing - there was a
>case locally here recently where a husband and wife pair of MDs got
>turned down for a mortgage due to income that hit the news to the
>effect that 'if THEY can't get a mortgage who can?!?")

What goes up must come down. And nothing reduces property values like
a wide-spread inability to buy.

I had an uncle who convinced one of my brothers that land values could
never go down because "people always need someplace to live". During a
family reunion in (IIRC) 1982, we saw a news broadcast where a man was
interviewed whose house had just dropped by $1M; he was, of course, in
California. My brother was appalled, but I pointed out that we didn't
know how much the house was worth: if it had been worth $2M, this was
indeed a disaster; but if if had be worth $10M, then it was an
inconvenience. My brother and uncle were not amused.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:58:49 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On 24 Jan 2024 21:28:03 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>Many who are basically say that because Trump put "conservatives" on
>>the Supreme Court to eliminate Roe vs. Wade that they are on his side because
>>this is more important to them than anything else in the world. I find this
>>very strange, seeing that until fairly recently the anti-abortion movement was
>>a Catholic thing and evangelicals specifically avoided the issue in order to
>>distinguish themselves from those evil Catholics.
>
>Evangelicals have historically been every bit as 'solid' on abortion
>as have Catholics but tend not to talk about it much.

Christians as a whole have historically been against abortion. This is
somewhat obscured by the fact the Roe v Wade was 50 years or so ago,
but Christians have been around for about 2000 years, so 50 years is a
piffle.

And why would they not? All the classical cultures were against it, as
a property crime against the father.

>Someone like Clarence Thomas got nominated as he was a black jurist
>who could be counted on to vote the way the president wanted. The fact
>that Dubya appointed him is no more shocking than if a Democrat
>president had nominated a left leaning jurist for the SCOTUS.

Not Dubya, it was the original in 1991.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 08:22:07 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>>>traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>>>responses to you post have noted.

Most evangelicals would agree a certain standard of behaviour is
expected of "God's people" though there might well be differences
between various groups. I can't imagine too many of them approve of
Trump's marital history or Trump's idea of sexual morality.

>The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
>cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
>the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.

Which the government is constitutionally barred from intervening in -
for instance if a Hindu claims to be a Buddhist (for instance) that's
none of the government's business.

>>>Well, you may agree that Trump is not woke in any sense.=20

I happen to agree with yoiu though that's not a question of 'freedom
of religion'

>>>I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
>>>(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
>>>female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
>>>cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
>>>in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
>>
>>Farbeit that antebellum Southrons are considered 19th century examples
>>of what people of faith were supposed to be like.
>
>/They/ certainly thought that they were.

Agreed - though I'd argue that pretty much through the 20th century
(and certainly today) most American Christians (including the Southern
Baptist Convention) would disagree. Note that given the various papal
encyclicals have also drifted in matters of morality - it's not just
Protestants.

>In these discussions, I find the phrase "whitewashed tomb" keeps
>occurring to me.

\Yup! Well said!

>>As for LGBT etc a LOT of straight people dislike the term since many
>>of the wokesters will go ballistic if one includes or excludes the
>>right letters. For that one is damned forever in these folks' eyes. I
>>know one guy (he and I are both regulars at our city council) who is
>>in a 30+ year gay relationship and he knows I'm not interested in it
>>so mostly we ignore it except the few times he slips - which I
>>occasionally do when mentioning my children to make a political point.

I previously neglected to mention that for me at least most of those
references were with respect to the school board. (As you might expect
in discussions involving children)

>I don't dislike it, but including the largest set of symbols I have
>seen (as I did above) might be seen as a form of satire.

I've seen that done too which REALLY sets the wokesters off!

>Not of the people, of course, just the ever-growing acronym. Although
>I suppose the "+" at the end is supposed to keep any more letters from
>being added.

At least in these parts those folks have even changed the rainbow flag
to include other groups (usually with a sideways V) And God help the
well meaning person who gets the version wrong!

>>(Most recently about the skyrocketing cost of housing - there was a
>>case locally here recently where a husband and wife pair of MDs got
>>turned down for a mortgage due to income that hit the news to the
>>effect that 'if THEY can't get a mortgage who can?!?")
>
>What goes up must come down. And nothing reduces property values like
>a wide-spread inability to buy.

True but where housing is used for money-laundering by off shore drug
dealers what you suggest may not happen. And in the meantime the
30-something generation (which historically has been when most
homeowners have purchased their first homes) are locked out of the
market when they should be getting into it. I have said to our mayor
(direct quote) "I am disturbed when I know that my children's road to
home ownership lies in my demise!" He nearly choked on the spot but
clearly understood what I meant.

>I had an uncle who convinced one of my brothers that land values could
>never go down because "people always need someplace to live". During a
>family reunion in (IIRC) 1982, we saw a news broadcast where a man was
>interviewed whose house had just dropped by $1M; he was, of course, in
>California. My brother was appalled, but I pointed out that we didn't
>know how much the house was worth: if it had been worth $2M, this was
>indeed a disaster; but if if had be worth $10M, then it was an
>inconvenience. My brother and uncle were not amused.

Heh, heh. Housing prices in Vancouver BC are lower than California
though given the US$ vs Canadian $ (currently CDN $1.00 = roughly US$
..74 - .75) so the dollar amounts are about equal.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 00:59:17 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 08:22:07 -0800, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>>>>traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>>>>responses to you post have noted.
>
>Most evangelicals would agree a certain standard of behaviour is
>expected of "God's people" though there might well be differences
>between various groups. I can't imagine too many of them approve of
>Trump's marital history or Trump's idea of sexual morality.

And yet a lot of them vote for him. And others like him.

>>The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
>>cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
>>the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
>
>Which the government is constitutionally barred from intervening in -
>for instance if a Hindu claims to be a Buddhist (for instance) that's
>none of the government's business.
>
>>>>Well, you may agree that Trump is not woke in any sense.=20
>
>I happen to agree with yoiu though that's not a question of 'freedom
>of religion'
>
>>>>I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
>>>>(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
>>>>female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
>>>>cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
>>>>in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
>>>
>>>Farbeit that antebellum Southrons are considered 19th century examples
>>>of what people of faith were supposed to be like.
>>
>>/They/ certainly thought that they were.
>
>Agreed - though I'd argue that pretty much through the 20th century
>(and certainly today) most American Christians (including the Southern
>Baptist Convention) would disagree. Note that given the various papal
>encyclicals have also drifted in matters of morality - it's not just
>Protestants.

I'm not so sure. The SBC was /formed/ to support slavery. It did
apologize but, sadly, while apologies are all very nice, God demands
repentance. And their attitude towards women and the rainbow groups
shows that they have neither learned from the past nor repented of
their bad behavior, but may have merely pulled their horns in on race.
OTOH, I read an article where an SBC member was challenged by her
husband to find a Biblical basis for her refusal to provide a service
(wedding cake, IIRC, but could have been something else) to a
mixed-race couple. Oddly, even her pastor could not find it.

Heck, anybody raised in the 50s knows /that/ one. It's occasionally
mentioned on this newsgroup: mixing cloth in clothes, yoking oxen with
asses, that sort of prohibition. Racists will use anything they can
get their hands on to justify their bad behavior.

What's more amazing than the amnesia of her church is the fact that
she accepted that the Bible did not forbid mixed-race marriages and
changed her mind.

>>In these discussions, I find the phrase "whitewashed tomb" keeps
>>occurring to me.
>
>\Yup! Well said!
>
>>>As for LGBT etc a LOT of straight people dislike the term since many
>>>of the wokesters will go ballistic if one includes or excludes the
>>>right letters. For that one is damned forever in these folks' eyes. I
>>>know one guy (he and I are both regulars at our city council) who is
>>>in a 30+ year gay relationship and he knows I'm not interested in it
>>>so mostly we ignore it except the few times he slips - which I
>>>occasionally do when mentioning my children to make a political point.
>
>I previously neglected to mention that for me at least most of those
>references were with respect to the school board. (As you might expect
>in discussions involving children)
>
>>I don't dislike it, but including the largest set of symbols I have
>>seen (as I did above) might be seen as a form of satire.
>
>I've seen that done too which REALLY sets the wokesters off!
>
>>Not of the people, of course, just the ever-growing acronym. Although
>>I suppose the "+" at the end is supposed to keep any more letters from
>>being added.
>
>At least in these parts those folks have even changed the rainbow flag
>to include other groups (usually with a sideways V) And God help the
>well meaning person who gets the version wrong!
>
>>>(Most recently about the skyrocketing cost of housing - there was a
>>>case locally here recently where a husband and wife pair of MDs got
>>>turned down for a mortgage due to income that hit the news to the
>>>effect that 'if THEY can't get a mortgage who can?!?")
>>
>>What goes up must come down. And nothing reduces property values like
>>a wide-spread inability to buy.
>
>True but where housing is used for money-laundering by off shore drug
>dealers what you suggest may not happen. And in the meantime the
>30-something generation (which historically has been when most
>homeowners have purchased their first homes) are locked out of the
>market when they should be getting into it. I have said to our mayor
>(direct quote) "I am disturbed when I know that my children's road to
>home ownership lies in my demise!" He nearly choked on the spot but
>clearly understood what I meant.

Around here, it is East Asians from a certain very large country that
get the blame. But I suppose if I were a billionaire in a communist
country I might want to stash some of my wealth overseas as well.

>>I had an uncle who convinced one of my brothers that land values could
>>never go down because "people always need someplace to live". During a
>>family reunion in (IIRC) 1982, we saw a news broadcast where a man was
>>interviewed whose house had just dropped by $1M; he was, of course, in
>>California. My brother was appalled, but I pointed out that we didn't
>>know how much the house was worth: if it had been worth $2M, this was
>>indeed a disaster; but if if had be worth $10M, then it was an
>>inconvenience. My brother and uncle were not amused.
>
>Heh, heh. Housing prices in Vancouver BC are lower than California
>though given the US$ vs Canadian $ (currently CDN $1.00 = roughly US$
>.74 - .75) so the dollar amounts are about equal.

Our house's assessed value actually /dropped/ for this year. In fact,
the value for 2024 Property Taxes is lower not only than that for
2023, but 2022 as well. Affordable housing is becoming a major issue
in Seattle: those baristas, clerks, checkers/baggers, etc have to have
/somewhere/ to live, and the 'burbs are too long a commute away.

Of course, assessed value is /not/ appraised value, nor is it what the
house is worth on the market. And property taxes don't go up and down
with value, at least not directly. But still, assessed value does tend
to follow the market.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 08:54:52 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Our house's assessed value actually /dropped/ for this year. In fact,
>the value for 2024 Property Taxes is lower not only than that for
>2023, but 2022 as well. Affordable housing is becoming a major issue
>in Seattle: those baristas, clerks, checkers/baggers, etc have to have
>/somewhere/ to live, and the 'burbs are too long a commute away.

Wish I were in your situation - between the increase in property
assessed value and the tax increase we're looking at at the municipal
level I'm looking at a tax increase in double digits - which is one
helluva thing to have to deal with in your second year of retirement.

>Of course, assessed value is /not/ appraised value, nor is it what the
>house is worth on the market. And property taxes don't go up and down
>with value, at least not directly. But still, assessed value does tend
>to follow the market.

In BC (Canada) we have a provincial assessment agency that does their
assessments based on what they think properties were worth as of July
1 the previous year. Trouble is they've fudged on that - and I know of
one commercial property that sold in October (two years ago) for $1
million over assessment which caused the assessors to raise everyone's
assessment by 20-30% based on a sale that took place 3 months after
the date on which properties were SUPPOSED to be assessed. (Frankly
the purchaser hadn't done his homework and paid too much thinking he'd
be able to build an underground parkade in an area where the water
table was 10-15' below ground level.....oops! But the result was that
every commercial property within 1/2 mile of him had massive tax
increases thanks to his idiocy)

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:11:05 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 08:54:52 -0800, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Our house's assessed value actually /dropped/ for this year. In fact,
>>the value for 2024 Property Taxes is lower not only than that for
>>2023, but 2022 as well. Affordable housing is becoming a major issue
>>in Seattle: those baristas, clerks, checkers/baggers, etc have to have
>>/somewhere/ to live, and the 'burbs are too long a commute away.
>
>Wish I were in your situation - between the increase in property
>assessed value and the tax increase we're looking at at the municipal
>level I'm looking at a tax increase in double digits - which is one
>helluva thing to have to deal with in your second year of retirement.

We had something like that a few years back when the Legislature
finally decided to comply with the State Supreme Court's long-standing
order to /actually/ fund K-12 education.

They did this through the property tax which, in accordance with the
State constitution, had a single millage rate (amount to be collected
/ total assessed value of all property subject to the tax in the
State).

In well-taxed (ie, Blue) counties, this increased the Property Tax by
about 16%

In the less well taxed (ie, Red) counties, this increased the Property
Tax by 33% or more.

But most taxing jurisdictions have a percentage limit (3% springs to
mind) on how much the amount they can ask for each year can grow.

Of course, in Seattle, the move to local hubs based around rapid
transit stations is raising the appraisals of property in/near those
hubs compared with property further away. Which means higher taxes for
those where multi-story apartment buildings can now (thanks to the
zoning changes) replace separate houses than those not yet affected by
the changes.

>>Of course, assessed value is /not/ appraised value, nor is it what the
>>house is worth on the market. And property taxes don't go up and down
>>with value, at least not directly. But still, assessed value does tend
>>to follow the market.
>
>In BC (Canada) we have a provincial assessment agency that does their
>assessments based on what they think properties were worth as of July
>1 the previous year. Trouble is they've fudged on that - and I know of
>one commercial property that sold in October (two years ago) for $1
>million over assessment which caused the assessors to raise everyone's
>assessment by 20-30% based on a sale that took place 3 months after
>the date on which properties were SUPPOSED to be assessed. (Frankly
>the purchaser hadn't done his homework and paid too much thinking he'd
>be able to build an underground parkade in an area where the water
>table was 10-15' below ground level.....oops! But the result was that
>every commercial property within 1/2 mile of him had massive tax
>increases thanks to his idiocy)

When my mom died in 1989, we had an appraisal done, which came back at
$80K. The assessment, allegedly the value on 1/1/90, was $120K. That a
50% increase in one month. I went through the appeal process, and got
it knocked down a bit (probably saving enough to pay for my expenses
in doing the appeal, making it worth while), but, of course, things
just kept going up from there.

We recently had an Assessor who was trying to get the Legislature to
reduce the taxes on homes over $1M, because the taxes on such a home
would be unfair to the occupants. It didn't work, AFAIK.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>>> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>>> responses to you post have noted.
>>
>> Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
>> a Christian is supposed to be.
>
> The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
>
> But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
> Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
> evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
> behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.

I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
it looks odd to me that some people are
practising a "Christianity" which is a
religion of money. But I don't think
I can claim that it's more wrong than
all the other versions. Anyway, the
Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
money thing isn't new, though I think
I heard that the current office holder
modestly lives in a silver house that
is next door to the golden one. Or
something on these lines.

Likewise, if someone practises religion
with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
interpretation of their holy book -
apparently ignoring it or contradicting
it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
either. If their god chooses not to
write everything down, how can I object?

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 08:21:30 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Of course, in Seattle, the move to local hubs based around rapid
>transit stations is raising the appraisals of property in/near those
>hubs compared with property further away. Which means higher taxes for
>those where multi-story apartment buildings can now (thanks to the
>zoning changes) replace separate houses than those not yet affected by
>the changes.

I'm in the unpleasant position of new legislation allowing subdivision
of single family lots in my area because I'm "on a bus route" even
though the nearest bus stop (in a fairly hilly area) is 2+ blocks in
either direction.

In short, the main time I see a bus is when it goes by at high speed.
Allegedly this is an 'amenity' though in practice it mostly means
extra care when exiting one's driveway or walking the dog.

About 20 years ago they instituted a "property tax levy" for public
transit in Vancouver and because our community's assessed rates are
higher than most we pay more though our buses run every 1/2 hour and
we get no subway. (Such is life in Vancouver's North Shore)

The main problem is though that the last time more lanes of traffic to
our part of town was built was 1961 and in that time the port traffic
(North Vancouver moves more tonnage of freight through its port than
Toronto) has mushroomed, new development has increased ferry traffic
to Vancouver Island and the "Sunshine Coast" and Whistler has grown
from 1200 people to about 30000 and a vibrant ski resort. Net result
is gridlock every rush hour and routes that used to be able to be done
in 20 minutes take 1 hour plus.

AND of course they've instituted a new "Rapid Bus" instead of a subway
which because it runs on dedicated lanes (taken from existing roads)
major arterials are now one lane in each direction and god help you if
you are stuck behind somebody turning left at an uncontrolled
intersection!

Trust me - for all you say about Seattle, Vancouver is considerably
worse traffic-wise!

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 12:13:10 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 08:21:30 -0800, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Of course, in Seattle, the move to local hubs based around rapid
>>transit stations is raising the appraisals of property in/near those
>>hubs compared with property further away. Which means higher taxes for
>>those where multi-story apartment buildings can now (thanks to the
>>zoning changes) replace separate houses than those not yet affected by
>>the changes.
>
>I'm in the unpleasant position of new legislation allowing subdivision
>of single family lots in my area because I'm "on a bus route" even
>though the nearest bus stop (in a fairly hilly area) is 2+ blocks in
>either direction.
>
>In short, the main time I see a bus is when it goes by at high speed.
>Allegedly this is an 'amenity' though in practice it mostly means
>extra care when exiting one's driveway or walking the dog.
>
>About 20 years ago they instituted a "property tax levy" for public
>transit in Vancouver and because our community's assessed rates are
>higher than most we pay more though our buses run every 1/2 hour and
>we get no subway. (Such is life in Vancouver's North Shore)
>
>The main problem is though that the last time more lanes of traffic to
>our part of town was built was 1961 and in that time the port traffic
>(North Vancouver moves more tonnage of freight through its port than
>Toronto) has mushroomed, new development has increased ferry traffic
>to Vancouver Island and the "Sunshine Coast" and Whistler has grown
>from 1200 people to about 30000 and a vibrant ski resort. Net result
>is gridlock every rush hour and routes that used to be able to be done
>in 20 minutes take 1 hour plus.
>
>AND of course they've instituted a new "Rapid Bus" instead of a subway
>which because it runs on dedicated lanes (taken from existing roads)
>major arterials are now one lane in each direction and god help you if
>you are stuck behind somebody turning left at an uncontrolled
>intersection!
>
>Trust me - for all you say about Seattle, Vancouver is considerably
>worse traffic-wise!

For better or worse, I don't worry about traffic, as I haven't driven
since 1983 and haven't owned a car since 1982. And that was in West
Germany (since merged, of course, with East Germany). So I can't
really say which is worse.

But, while we do have rail-based rapid transit (underground in some
places, above ground in others) we also have special buses, special
bus lanes, and bike lanes, and drivers down here complain of all that.
And that's just on arterials. We have small round islands in
neighborhood intersections. Oh, we have hills as well.

The theory appears to be to slow traffic down to the point that people
start riding the bus.

As to light rail -- the promise is that, with it, there will be some
percentage (20? 30?) fewer cars on the roads in a few decades /than
there would be in a few decades without it/. Actually reducing the
number of cars then below the number now is not promised.

So, being a pedestrian (it has been a few years since I took a bus
anywhere), I'm not that concerned about most of this. OK, when I got
off a bus one day onto a traffic island and found that the lane I was
supposed to cross over to get to the sidewalk was a /high-speed bike
lane/ I was a bit ... surprised. But such is the result of pursuing an
ideology without regard to reality. Or perhaps to regarding pedestrian
safety as of less priority than removing animal poop or roadkill.

And I still haven't figured out one bit of street which, so far as I
can tell from the size of the lane, allows only bicycles to travel
East on it. Cars might be able to move West, but that lane is mostly
for buses, presumably providing a straight shot at the local light
rail underground station a couple blocks further West. So there are
puzzles, but they mostly don't affect me.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>>>> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>>>> responses to you post have noted.
>>>
>>> Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
>>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
>>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
>>> a Christian is supposed to be.
>>
>> The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
>> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
>> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
>>
>> But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
>> Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
>> evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
>> behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
>
>I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
>it looks odd to me that some people are
>practising a "Christianity" which is a
>religion of money. But I don't think
>I can claim that it's more wrong than
>all the other versions. Anyway, the
>Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
>money thing isn't new, though I think
>I heard that the current office holder
>modestly lives in a silver house that
>is next door to the golden one. Or
>something on these lines.
>
>Likewise, if someone practises religion
>with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
>interpretation of their holy book -
>apparently ignoring it or contradicting
>it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
>either. If their god chooses not to
>write everything down, how can I object?

What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.

And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
entitled to do so.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>>>>> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>>>>> responses to you post have noted.
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
>>>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
>>>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
>>>> a Christian is supposed to be.
>>>
>>> The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
>>> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
>>> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
>>>
>>> But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
>>> Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
>>> evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
>>> behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
>>
>> I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
>> it looks odd to me that some people are
>> practising a "Christianity" which is a
>> religion of money. But I don't think
>> I can claim that it's more wrong than
>> all the other versions. Anyway, the
>> Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
>> money thing isn't new, though I think
>> I heard that the current office holder
>> modestly lives in a silver house that
>> is next door to the golden one. Or
>> something on these lines.
>>
>> Likewise, if someone practises religion
>> with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
>> interpretation of their holy book -
>> apparently ignoring it or contradicting
>> it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
>> either. If their god chooses not to
>> write everything down, how can I object?
>
> What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
> so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
> the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.
>
> And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
> entitled to do so.

That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
(of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
religion was invented.

pt

On 2/15/2024 9:56 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>>>>>> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>>>>>> responses to you post have noted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
>>>>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
>>>>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
>>>>> a Christian is supposed to be.
>>>>
>>>> The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
>>>> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
>>>> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
>>>>
>>>> But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
>>>> Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
>>>> evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
>>>> behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
>>>
>>> I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
>>> it looks odd to me that some people are
>>> practising a "Christianity" which is a
>>> religion of money.  But I don't think
>>> I can claim that it's more wrong than
>>> all the other versions.  Anyway, the
>>> Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
>>> money thing isn't new, though I think
>>> I heard that the current office holder
>>> modestly lives in a silver house that
>>> is next door to the golden one.  Or
>>> something on these lines.
>>>
>>> Likewise, if someone practises religion
>>> with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
>>> interpretation of their holy book -
>>> apparently ignoring it or contradicting
>>> it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
>>> either.  If their god chooses not to
>>> write everything down, how can I object?
>>
>> What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
>> so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
>> the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.
>>
>> And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
>> entitled to do so.
>
> That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
> of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
> (of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
> religion was invented.
>
Isn't that _why_ religion was invented?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:56:47 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>>>>>> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>>>>>> responses to you post have noted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
>>>>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
>>>>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
>>>>> a Christian is supposed to be.
>>>>
>>>> The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
>>>> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
>>>> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
>>>>
>>>> But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
>>>> Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
>>>> evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
>>>> behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
>>>
>>> I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
>>> it looks odd to me that some people are
>>> practising a "Christianity" which is a
>>> religion of money. But I don't think
>>> I can claim that it's more wrong than
>>> all the other versions. Anyway, the
>>> Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
>>> money thing isn't new, though I think
>>> I heard that the current office holder
>>> modestly lives in a silver house that
>>> is next door to the golden one. Or
>>> something on these lines.
>>>
>>> Likewise, if someone practises religion
>>> with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
>>> interpretation of their holy book -
>>> apparently ignoring it or contradicting
>>> it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
>>> either. If their god chooses not to
>>> write everything down, how can I object?
>>
>> What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
>> so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
>> the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.
>>
>> And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
>> entitled to do so.
>
>That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
>of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
>(of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
>religion was invented.

No, it did not and dies not. That's the point: how Christians are
supposed to behave is clear and has been generally agreed on for 2000
years.

That religion has been used to justify evil does not change how
Christians are supposed to behave. It does, however, say something
about the prevalence of sin and evil. It says, IOW, something about
the state of the world.

Why do you think the concept of "Satan" or "the Devil" (or any of the
other names used) exists? It exists to explain such divergences.

As do the concepts of "sin" and "corruption".

BTW, Marx was at least partly correct when he called religion "the
opiate of the people". One of the jobs of religion is to convince most
people to behave sensibly, as good citizens and neighbors. And so not
to revolt.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:39:12 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 2/15/2024 9:56 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
>>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>>>>>>> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>>>>>>> responses to you post have noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
>>>>>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
>>>>>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
>>>>>> a Christian is supposed to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
>>>>> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
>>>>> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
>>>>> Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
>>>>> evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
>>>>> behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
>>>> it looks odd to me that some people are
>>>> practising a "Christianity" which is a
>>>> religion of money.  But I don't think
>>>> I can claim that it's more wrong than
>>>> all the other versions.  Anyway, the
>>>> Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
>>>> money thing isn't new, though I think
>>>> I heard that the current office holder
>>>> modestly lives in a silver house that
>>>> is next door to the golden one.  Or
>>>> something on these lines.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise, if someone practises religion
>>>> with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
>>>> interpretation of their holy book -
>>>> apparently ignoring it or contradicting
>>>> it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
>>>> either.  If their god chooses not to
>>>> write everything down, how can I object?
>>>
>>> What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
>>> so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
>>> the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.
>>>
>>> And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
>>> entitled to do so.
>>
>> That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
>> of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
>> (of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
>> religion was invented.
>>
>Isn't that _why_ religion was invented?

Sadly, nobody knows for sure.

To find out, this simple two-step procedure may be followed. Be
advised, though: the first step is a doozie:

1. Invent time travel.
2. Go back ans see.

Organized state religions, I have come to suspect, were invented
(developed from earlier forms, to be sure) precisely to help the ruler
remain in power and to keep the people from revolting.

Of course, many of their practices (this is about ancient Near Eastern
religions, not Christianity, BTW) were condemned in the Bible. But
their job was to keep the subjects subjected, and that they appear to
have done fairly well.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 2/16/2024 11:30 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:56:47 -0500, Cryptoengineer
> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
>>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>>>>>>> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>>>>>>> responses to you post have noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
>>>>>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
>>>>>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
>>>>>> a Christian is supposed to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
>>>>> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
>>>>> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
>>>>> Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
>>>>> evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
>>>>> behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
>>>> it looks odd to me that some people are
>>>> practising a "Christianity" which is a
>>>> religion of money. But I don't think
>>>> I can claim that it's more wrong than
>>>> all the other versions. Anyway, the
>>>> Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
>>>> money thing isn't new, though I think
>>>> I heard that the current office holder
>>>> modestly lives in a silver house that
>>>> is next door to the golden one. Or
>>>> something on these lines.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise, if someone practises religion
>>>> with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
>>>> interpretation of their holy book -
>>>> apparently ignoring it or contradicting
>>>> it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
>>>> either. If their god chooses not to
>>>> write everything down, how can I object?
>>>
>>> What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
>>> so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
>>> the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.
>>>
>>> And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
>>> entitled to do so.
>>
>> That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
>> of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
>> (of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
>> religion was invented.
>
> No, it did not and dies not. That's the point: how Christians are
> supposed to behave is clear and has been generally agreed on for 2000
> years.
>
> That religion has been used to justify evil does not change how
> Christians are supposed to behave. It does, however, say something
> about the prevalence of sin and evil. It says, IOW, something about
> the state of the world.

Who does the supposing? The Spanish Inquisition and the Albigensian
Crusade were carried out by people who considered themselves
devout Christians, and they were motivated by concern for the souls
(though not the bodies) of those who had fallen into error. Your
second guessing them at a distance of centuries is kind of shakey.

You're drifting into 'No True Scotsman' territory.

I'm reminded of the discussion recently of
"The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does, Not What It Claims To Do"

pt

On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 4:51:50 PM UTC-5, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 11:30 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:56:47 -0500, Cryptoengineer
> > <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
> >>> <rja.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
> >>>>>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
> >>>>>>> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
> >>>>>>> responses to you post have noted.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
> >>>>>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
> >>>>>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
> >>>>>> a Christian is supposed to be.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
> >>>>> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
> >>>>> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
> >>>>> Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
> >>>>> evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
> >>>>> behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
> >>>> it looks odd to me that some people are
> >>>> practising a "Christianity" which is a
> >>>> religion of money. But I don't think
> >>>> I can claim that it's more wrong than
> >>>> all the other versions. Anyway, the
> >>>> Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
> >>>> money thing isn't new, though I think
> >>>> I heard that the current office holder
> >>>> modestly lives in a silver house that
> >>>> is next door to the golden one. Or
> >>>> something on these lines.
> >>>>
> >>>> Likewise, if someone practises religion
> >>>> with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
> >>>> interpretation of their holy book -
> >>>> apparently ignoring it or contradicting
> >>>> it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
> >>>> either. If their god chooses not to
> >>>> write everything down, how can I object?
> >>>
> >>> What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
> >>> so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
> >>> the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.
> >>>
> >>> And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
> >>> entitled to do so.
> >>
> >> That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
> >> of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
> >> (of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
> >> religion was invented.
> >
> > No, it did not and dies not. That's the point: how Christians are
> > supposed to behave is clear and has been generally agreed on for 2000
> > years.
> >
> > That religion has been used to justify evil does not change how
> > Christians are supposed to behave. It does, however, say something
> > about the prevalence of sin and evil. It says, IOW, something about
> > the state of the world.
> Who does the supposing? The Spanish Inquisition and the Albigensian
> Crusade were carried out by people who considered themselves
> devout Christians, and they were motivated by concern for the souls
> (though not the bodies) of those who had fallen into error. Your
> second guessing them at a distance of centuries is kind of shakey.

>
> You're drifting into 'No True Scotsman' territory.

All arguments in defense of the crimes committed by the religious, in the
name of religion, eventually become NTS arguments.

In the case of the SI, there certainly were those whose religious motivation
was sincere. But as the property of those convicted was seized and a
substantial cut given to the informants, a different motivation became
very important. Many cases were fabricated just to get the accused's
property, or deprive him of a position (e.g. Bishop) coveted by another.

I'm not sure that those who fought in the Albigensian Crusade were
particularly motivated by religion. The bulk of the population in
the targeted area were orthodox Catholics, accused of nothing more
than not persecuting their Cathar neighbors. If even that.

It was they who suffered the most in the crusades, which were largely a
matter of the northern French stealing land from their southern countrymen.
The area was home to a few hundred Cathar "Perfects", a few thousand
Cathars who had not reached that state (it was not required), and others
influenced by Cathar ideas. They were universally seen as good people,
hence their neighbor's laudable toleration of them.

>
> I'm reminded of the discussion recently of
> "The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does, Not What It Claims To Do"

Even if we grant that the first person to come up with something like a
religion was utterly sincere, as soon as that person obtained any
status, wealth, or favours due to his faith, another class of people
would join in. It's so much more profitable and easier than highway
robbery. Or ploughing a field.

Every so often someone tries to purify their religion. These purified
movements themselves often become corrupt (1). For example, when Wycliffe
preached against the wealth of the church, he was initially supported
by the Dominicans and Franciscans, whose founders had preached
similarly. But when these orders found that Wycliffe's strictures
also applied to their now very considerable wealth, they turned against him..

A couple of hundred years after Francis someone tried to emulate him.
This time the Church knew what to do - he was executed and his followers
at best dispersed.

(1) Some exception exist, as far as I know the Theatine order never amassed any
property, one reason they almost vanished. Wikipedia tells me there are
still 170 members today. They were never intended to be a large
order.).

William Hyde

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:35:22 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 4:51:50?PM UTC-5, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 11:30 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:56:47 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>> > <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
>> >>> <rja.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
>> >>>>>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>> >>>>>>> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>> >>>>>>> responses to you post have noted.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
>> >>>>>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
>> >>>>>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
>> >>>>>> a Christian is supposed to be.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
>> >>>>> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
>> >>>>> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
>> >>>>> Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
>> >>>>> evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
>> >>>>> behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
>> >>>> it looks odd to me that some people are
>> >>>> practising a "Christianity" which is a
>> >>>> religion of money. But I don't think
>> >>>> I can claim that it's more wrong than
>> >>>> all the other versions. Anyway, the
>> >>>> Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
>> >>>> money thing isn't new, though I think
>> >>>> I heard that the current office holder
>> >>>> modestly lives in a silver house that
>> >>>> is next door to the golden one. Or
>> >>>> something on these lines.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Likewise, if someone practises religion
>> >>>> with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
>> >>>> interpretation of their holy book -
>> >>>> apparently ignoring it or contradicting
>> >>>> it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
>> >>>> either. If their god chooses not to
>> >>>> write everything down, how can I object?
>> >>>
>> >>> What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
>> >>> so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
>> >>> the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.
>> >>>
>> >>> And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
>> >>> entitled to do so.
>> >>
>> >> That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
>> >> of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
>> >> (of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
>> >> religion was invented.
>> >
>> > No, it did not and dies not. That's the point: how Christians are
>> > supposed to behave is clear and has been generally agreed on for 2000
>> > years.
>> >
>> > That religion has been used to justify evil does not change how
>> > Christians are supposed to behave. It does, however, say something
>> > about the prevalence of sin and evil. It says, IOW, something about
>> > the state of the world.
>> Who does the supposing? The Spanish Inquisition and the Albigensian
>> Crusade were carried out by people who considered themselves
>> devout Christians, and they were motivated by concern for the souls
>> (though not the bodies) of those who had fallen into error. Your
>> second guessing them at a distance of centuries is kind of shakey.
>
>
>>
>> You're drifting into 'No True Scotsman' territory.
>
>All arguments in defense of the crimes committed by the religious, in the
>name of religion, eventually become NTS arguments.

I don't think anyone here is trying to defend the crimes committed by
the religious and/or in the name of religion. How Christians are
supposed to be behave and how some of them behave are, sadly, all too
often two different things.

Indeed, the assertion appears to be that those who do so are not
behaving as Christians are supposed to behave, as that has been
understood for 2000 years.

And that some appear to have departed from that understanding.

There is a big difference from not behaving as you are supposed to be
behaving and developing your own version of what people are supposed
to do to justify your bad behavior.

You also might want to keep in mind that I include ideologies and
philosophies in the term "religion", including atheistic ones. Those
claiming that religions always have some members doing great evil
might also keep in mind the holodolomor and Pol Pot when attempting to
exclude atheistic systems from the status of "religion".
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"