"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
...

I've discovered that values worth holding stand on their own. An
undeveloped value system says, "Don't have sex because it's wrong and
you'll be punished." A more developed value system says, "Don't have
sex because it could make you a parent before you're ready, give you a
disease you can't get rid of, or make you feel cheap and used because
you did it for the wrong reasons, before you were ready, and
underestimated the emotional significance of the act. Once you work
out how to deal with all of these issues, you'll be able to have all
kinds of wonderful sex with whomever you choose and the risks will be
under your control."

Of course, before you can tell your kids something like that, you have
to learn it for yourself. This kind of nuance doesn't necessarily
translate across languages and millenia, which is why "thou shalt not"
was relied upon for so long. I think we've outgrown the
oversimplification.

Nicely stated.

ryanm

"Blind Joni" wrote in message
...

All I'm saying is that if it works for someone..don't put their belief
down
because you disagree. I thought the idea was to improve situations..not
judge
who's methodology is better..when both may have positve results.

If it works for you, in the privacy of your own home, then have at it.
With my public funds, however, you can keep your religion to yourself. Your
methodology, no matter how effective you may think it is, is *always*
inappropriate when it involves religious principles being institutionalized
by public funds. That bothersome 1st amendment and all.

ryanm

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

That's
just not how it works. Good kids think and talk among themselves about
doing all kinds of **** that would horrify you if you heard about it.
It would make you want to send your kids off to boarding school, unless
you knew how much more they'd be talking there. What they actually do
when they're done talking about it depends a whole lot on what they
already know will happen.

IME the boarding school kids did WAY more stuff than us public school
kids did...

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

When the DARE program comes into junior high schools and flat-out lies
to kids about the *specific* dangers of drug use, they may scare kids
away for a while. But eventually those kids will find out that they've
been lied to, and the end result is a complete failure of the anti-drug
campaing because now they won't believe anything they've been told
about the real dangers. Kids respond much more when they understang
the true reasoning behind a rule. Unless the reason is a lousy one, in
which case they tend to go ahead and break it.


Replace "DARE program" with "parents" and you have another true statement...

In article Justin Ulysses Morse
writes:
I don't pretend to know a whole lot about the dangers of cocaine use.
I never had any interest in the stuff. But I do know the facts about
some other drugs, so they'll serve as a decent analogy.
When the DARE program comes into junior high schools and flat-out lies
to kids about the *specific* dangers of drug use, they may scare kids
away for a while. But eventually those kids will find out that they've
been lied to, and the end result is a complete failure of the anti-drug
campaing because now they won't believe anything they've been told
about the real dangers. Kids respond much more when they understang
the true reasoning behind a rule. Unless the reason is a lousy one, in
which case they tend to go ahead and break it. My position is that
kids (and adults) shouldn't have to break rules that have lousy reasons
behind them.


When the local police came to my high school to educate us about drugs, they
passed a pair of "joints" around the audience in a plastic case. When the case
came back, it contained 3 joints. The program was never repeated. This was
1966.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

In article "ryanm"
writes:
"Blind Joni" wrote in message
...

All I'm saying is that if it works for someone..don't put their belief
down
because you disagree. I thought the idea was to improve situations..not
judge
who's methodology is better..when both may have positve results.

If it works for you, in the privacy of your own home, then have at it.
With my public funds, however, you can keep your religion to yourself. Your
methodology, no matter how effective you may think it is, is *always*
inappropriate when it involves religious principles being institutionalized
by public funds. That bothersome 1st amendment and all.

ryanm


You can also join the Freedom From Religion Foundation (www.ffrf.org) to help
keep religion where it belongs.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

Stats have shown that Birth control leads to lower crime rates, and places
less burdens on the 'social net' therefoe increasing the standards of
living for everyone.

But I kow plenty of folks who are well aware of birth control, can't afford to
support children on their own, don't join the Armed Forces, consistantly get
arrested for petty crimes, keep fathering more kids from multiple
partners..etc..and I'm convinced it's BECAUSE of the social welfare system...at
least to the degree that it allows those in such situations to keep on doing
what their doing. That could be looked at as a government plot.


Part of keeping the third world in the third world is
keeping them overpopulated so they can't have a social net.

Do you beleive that foreign governments are trying to keep their populaces over
populated and poor?


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:42:07 +0000 (UTC), (Jay
Kadis) wrote:

When the local police came to my high school to educate us about drugs, they
passed a pair of "joints" around the audience in a plastic case. When the case
came back, it contained 3 joints. The program was never repeated. This was
1966.

Now THAT's funny.

Chris Hornbeck

"Because they *work for* the real criminals."
ulysses

In article
(Blind Joni) writes:
I
might
not like A.A...but for some it works. That's a faith based program to a
certain
degree..and that's OK with me.

Not disavowing it, just disagreeing with spending tax money on it.
Parents can teach their kids whatever they want, but we need to stop
institutionalizing religious values

So how do we draw the line..most of our laws come from some kind of religious
law.
What I mean is that it's too bad that if a faith preaches " be faithful to
you
spouse" that any government advocation of this is seen to be non productive.
I know my choices are my own but I disagree that we.."as a species"..have
"evolved" to any point where things are radically different than they were a
few thousand years ago. Civilization has progressed but beings that live an
average of 75+ years haven't gone through much biological evolution in that
time period...which causes a lot of the friction of living in a modern
society.

John A. Chiara

I do not feel the need to rely on extrinsic indoctrination in order to know
that treating others as I would be treated is a good idea. When humans first
looked up at the night sky, they were overwhelmed by the universe. We now have
tools to carefully examine that universe and no longer must make up religions
to explain what we see. Neither must we invoke a greater power to justify
doing what pragmatically makes sense as a population.

The fractionation of society by religion has passed the point of positive
contribution and now causes at least as much friction as do the cultural
divisions. While it is true that many of our laws are based on religious
tenets, those tenets are based on common sense and pragmatic decisions about
how people can best survive together. Would you think killing was OK if the
Bible didn't tell you otherwise?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

Stats have shown that birth control leads to lower crime rates,
and places less burden on the 'social net', therefoe increasing
the standards of living for everyone.

But I kow plenty of folks who are well aware of birth control, can't afford to
support children on their own, don't join the Armed Forces, consistantly get
arrested for petty crimes, keep fathering more kids from multiple partners,
etc. And I'm convinced it's BECAUSE of the social welfare system... At
least to the degree that it allows those in such situations to keep on doing
what they're doing. That could be looked at as a government plot.

These things went on long before welfare. If there's a government plot, it's
from the conservatives -- to give poor people "just enough" support they won't
want to revolt. (Richard Nixon said almost as much.)

Allowing for the partial truth of what you say... How would you "punish" these
people for their bad behavior? "Survival of the fittest" does NOT apply to the
poor and disadvantaged -- they keep reproducing, with or without government
support programs.

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
...

Would you think killing was OK if the
Bible didn't tell you otherwise?

From the Biblical standpoint, every one of the ten commandments can be
demonstrated to have been in effect before the tables of stone hit the scene.
Even so, the point of the ten commandments isn't strictly to capriciously tell
you not to do something, they actually point to a set of behaviors that have a
natural set of bad consequences if infracted, so you are not to do them for your
own good (if you believe in God and His Word, I mean).

"Thou shalt not steal." Bad idea, because others may react rather violently to
having their stuff taken from them. Same goes with adultery. How many men have
had their heads blown off because they were messing around with another man's
wife?

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods." Jealousy is the other root of evil,
isn't it? Lots of bad things occur as a result of one man being jealous of what
another has.

"Thou shalt do no murder." People have a habit of wanting personal vengeance
(another concept the Bible shows God is against.) Hatfields & McCoys comes to
mind.

"Six days shall you work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your
God." Some of us idiots would work seven days a week otherwise. Not healthy in
the long run. We need time off to recharge the batteries and just rest. That's
why the word "Sabbath" means, literally, "rest."

Interesting that in the Biblical story of creation the first thing God did when
he created man was to give him the day off.

Aside from the natural, physical manefestations of bad stuff for stealing,
murdering and adultery, there's also what it does to a man's heart.

If you set aside the religious aspect of them, it's pretty clear that the ten
commandments serve to tell man how to avoid the natural bad repercussions of
being an idiot. God isn't up there sending lighning bolts down when a man lies
or steals. Man's punishment for doing that stuff happens all on its own.

John.LeBlanc wrote:

If you set aside the religious aspect of them, it's pretty clear that the ten
commandments serve to tell man how to avoid the natural bad repercussions of
being an idiot.

Weren't they also temporary, and superceded by the New Covenant? In
effect; once you truly live in your heart, you no longer need simplistic
laws to help you discern right from wrong.

John.LeBlanc wrote:

If you set aside the religious aspect of them, it's pretty clear that the ten
commandments serve to tell man how to avoid the natural bad repercussions of
being an idiot. God isn't up there sending lighning bolts down when a man lies
or steals. Man's punishment for doing that stuff happens all on its own.

I couldn't have said it better myself.


ulysses

Scott Dorsey wrote:

They did in Virginia last year... 15 year old girl and 14 year old boy
having sex in the hallways at school. Generally not a good idea, and
certainly worthy of some punishment, but they prosecuted the boy under
the statutory rape law. It didn't stick, not surprisingly, but they tried.

That is pretty silly. How did they decide which one to prosecute?

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...
JohnLeBlanc wrote:

If you set aside the religious aspect of them, it's pretty clear that the
ten
commandments serve to tell man how to avoid the natural bad repercussions of
being an idiot.

Weren't they also temporary, and superceded by the New Covenant? In
effect; once you truly live in your heart, you no longer need simplistic
laws to help you discern right from wrong.

Perfect example of what I meant when I referred to supposed Biblical knowledge.
Again, since we are discussing Christianity, that requires referencing the Bible
so that's the frame of reference here.

Since the ten commandments were shown to be in force before they were officially
put to stone, and the Bible tells of a time after Christ's return when the
commandments will be "written in their hearts" -- which is an allusion to
knowing them so well you could recite them from memory -- it's hard to imagine
they would be temporarily "done away with" in the mean time.

A covenant is simply an agreement. If you agree to record my band for $1000 a
day and I accept your offer, we have a covenant, a deal. You do some things, I
do some things. Often these deals not only include rewards for performance, they
also include what happens for non-performance.

The Old Covenant God made with the children of Israel included rewards for
performance and penalties for non-performance. After it was all laid out for
them, Israel said "Okay, we agree."

The covenant included the ten commanments. The covenant was, in part, based on
the ten commandments. But the covenant was not the ten commandments, per se.
Israel could (did) break the covenant they made with God but that didn't set
aside the ten commandments. They still exist in a "separate document".

I've yet to run into a self-professing Christian who believes the commandment
against murder is a bad one and should be done away. Or stealing, lying, or any
of the other ones -- except the one about Sabbath observance. There's nothing
inherently wrong with the ten commandments except, I suppose, the word
"commandment". People being told what they should and should not do generally
doesn't sit well. But the commandments are simply a roadmap to how not to screw
up your life.

Followers of Christ are known as "God's children" and I think that's so apt.
Children tend to think that when a parent says "Don't play with matches." it's
just another stupid, oppressive rule, and the natural inclination is to rebel
against it. But the reality of the situation is that the parent knows playing
with matches can cause all sorts of dangerous consequences not for the parent
specifically, but for the child. The rule is for the child's safety. Same with
the ten commandments.

The concept of the New Covenant is often used to "do away" with the ten
commandments, as in they were "nailed to the cross." The problem is that the
Bible doesn't support a new covenant doing away with anything, and that includes
the seven yearly festivals and the Sabbath observance. Reading in both the old
and new testaments about what happens at the return of Christ, it's clear the
commandments are not only still in place, but will be etched on the minds. The
Sabbath will be observed. This stuff hasn't gone away at all.

A lot of people mistakenly assume the Old Covenant is Old Testament and New
Covenant is New Testament and neither the twain shall meet. Hardly fact, if
"fact" is based on what's actually in the Bible. According to the Bible, when
Christ comes back, God will then make a New Covenant with the people.

The God of the Bible -- both the old and new testament -- is not a God of
oppression, but a God of freedoms. But you wouldn't know that if you spent time
listening to most preachers on the subject, would you?

There's so much about what's in the Bible that's taken out of context to both
bolster or deride the contents, explain/justify aberant behavior that it makes
my hair hurt. It's not that the contents are that difficult to understand. It's
that many people would just as well pretend the inconvenient parts didn't exist
at all. People who come to hate God and the Bible and religion in general do so
usually at the hands of God's so-called proponents. Sucks.

If you set aside the religious aspect of them, it's pretty clear that the ten
commandments serve to tell man how to avoid the natural bad repercussions of
being an idiot. God isn't up there sending lighning bolts down when a man
lies
or steals. Man's punishment for doing that stuff happens all on its own.

Well, some of them are that -- Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's wife, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt bear no false witness. But
some of them are strictly parochial, meant to enforce the religious preferences
of the tribe against those of surrounding tribes: Thou shalt have no other gods
before me (at a time when various groups around the area worshipped various
gods) and Thou shalt make no graven images (at a time when the other tribes
made them). Those were about specific tribal definitions rather than general
laws of human behavior, and those definitions were explicit preferences of the
Jews (worship of only a single god, no worship of idols) rather than universal
laws.

Peace,
Paul

If you set aside the religious aspect of them, it's pretty clear that
the ten commandments serve to tell man how to avoid the natural bad
repercussions of being an idiot. God isn't up there sending lighning
bolts down when a man lies or steals. Man's punishment for doing that
stuff happens all on its own.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Didn't see anything in there about weed. g

--
ha

I don't
know of any legitimate "religion" that advocates violence of any kind.

I do. It's called Judaism -- which happens, by the way, to be the religion to
which I belong. The Torah makes very explicit that killing your enemies is a
good thing.

Want an example? The first page of Exodus I opened has this (translation is the
Jerusalem Bible); it happens when Moses comes down from the mountain and
discovers the people worshipping the golden calf:

"And he said to them, 'This is the message of Yahweh, the God of Israel. Gird
on your sword, every man of you, and quarter the camp from gate to gate,
killing one his brother, another his friend, another his neighbor.' The sons of
Levi carried out the command of Moses, and of the people about three thousand
men perished that day. 'Today,' Moses said, 'you have won yourselves
investiture as priests of Yahweh at the cost, one of his son, another of his
brother, and so he grants you a blessing today." (Exodus 32:27-29)

Violent enough for you? My point is not that Judaism is worse than other
religions, it's just the one I know best. Most of the religions of the world
have similar ideas -- that violence is wrong, unless somebody's doing something
you don't like, in which case violence is commanded by whichever deity does the
commanding. In this case Yahweh, through his prophet Moses.

I remain a Jew despite tons of stuff like that in our history and in our
scriptures, because it's the group with which I feel the strongest emotional
identification. But I'd rather not whitewash our history, which is as bloody as
anyone else's. I'm a Jew in spite of our history, not because of it. And like
most modern Americans, I pick and choose which parts of my religion I will
follow.

Peace,
Paul (wearing a shirt of mixed fibers as I type)

I was dismayed, however, after years of thinking wonderful things about UK
health care, to hear on reliable authority about a UK woman---she happened to be
a nurse---who had a cancer requiring urgent care; and who could not get that
care from the public health system. That is, it was going to be delayed so long
as to be useless.


James Boyk

On 2003-09-15 said:
just not how it works. Good kids think and talk among themselves
about doing all kinds of **** that would horrify you if you heard
about it. It would make you want to send your kids off to
boarding school, unless you knew how much more they'd be talking
there. What they actually do when they're done talking about it
depends a whole lot on what they already know will happen.
IME the boarding school kids did WAY more stuff than us public
school kids did...

Amen brother! I did boarding school as a younger kid. oNE
houseparent with 30-50 kids to look after, 2-4 kids to a room; lots of
places where adult supervision during off-school hours is slack. Draw
your own conclusions.

Let's see---my first cigarette at age 10 in the furnace room of the
boys' dormitory. Favorite places for sexual activity might be the
team tunnels or the mens'/womens' rest rooms in the main building
after hours. Nearby woods and a railroad trestle to hide below. Lots
of ways for your kids to find mischief at your friendly boarding
school. this one was a state run operation for blind kids, but it
don't change when you send your kids to the high toned one where you
pay the tuition. IT'll make for some interesting conversations around
the dinner table when they're grown. THey'll have some to tell their
kids also g.

Regards,



Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



Amazing how much tape is on a 10" reel, when it's not, isn't it?

On 2003-09-16 (BlindJoni) said:
But I know plenty of folks who are well aware of birth control,
can't afford to support children on their own, don't join the Armed
Forces, consistantly get arrested for petty crimes, keep fathering
more kids from multiple partners..etc..and I'm convinced it's
BECAUSE of the social welfare system...at least to the degree that
it allows those in such situations to keep on doing what their
doing. That could be looked at as a government plot. Part of
keeping the third world in the third world is keeping them
overpopulated so they can't have a social net. Do you beleive that
foreign governments are trying to keep their populaces over
populated and poor?

NOt necessarily a plot by the leaders of these countries. HOwever I
do believe that the apathy of the large corporations and so-called
first world governments toward this problem contributes to it. THe
apathy is fed by plain ol' greed, and we all know that one.

I've touched on this before, but these poor people consume goods and
services just like others. THey need food; housing; medical care;
their kids want Nintendo boxes and videos; they want the designer
clothing manufactured by slave labor in third world countries. Those
services create a multitude of jobs; the social welfare net creates a
bunch of jobs and if you actually got many of theese folks self
sufficient those jobs would be superfluous.

WHen I've had occasion to talk with people in the professions of
serving this gigantic social welfare net you get the impression that
many just throw up their hands and say "waht can you do" when
confronted with these problems. IT's easier to throw a little money
at them and say "look at what we're doing for these unfortunates" than
it is to put the resources behind real solutions.

I've heard the comment attributed to Nxion form toher sources as well.
TO paraphrase it states that a social welfare network exists to keep
the poor from revolting. I've of mixed feelings on this one. That
may be a part of it, but I blame bureaucracy more than I do this
premise. Bureaucracies feed themselves first and do their actual job
second. reading "THe PEter PRinciple" By Dr. Lawrence J. PEter will
illustrate this.

YES break down of the family unit's a big part of this. CHildren of
single moms who started out as single moms as teens. NO life skills
equals no parenting skills. we go on doing what we're doing because
it works---sort of. Pop another kid get another check. wHere's dad?
WHo knows---who cares!

My lady and I spent yesterday at the courthouse filing eviction papers
on just such a welfare mama. Three kids all with different fathers;
an AFDC check and begs for food and resources to pay her rent. sHE
doesn't work and thinks the world owes her. rEnt in the complexes we
manage is due on the 1st with a 5 day grace period. ON the 6th of the
month if you've not paid your rent you pay a $5 late fee for every day
your rent is not paid after the first. Also on the 6th you're served
with a 5 day notice to get it paid or do the obogey. SHe did neither.
SUddenly when my wife returns from the courthouse boyfriend shows up
with a money order that's been in his pocket since the 6th. Needless
to say she's outa here!!! sHe's consistently late nad won't pay the
late fees.

AS for her kids, chances are they'll grow up to be just like mom, at
least the girls will. The boy(s) probably just like their dads.
MOral turpitude? You bet! Yet she can always find another corporate
foundation or charity run by some church to kick in some rent money or
throw her a food basket. ONe would think these corporations would do
better to cut off the sugar tit and help crate job training and
education programs. hmm then the local branch manager's sis the
social worker would be looking for a job possibly.

Meanwhile we consider that most folks when given an opportunity to
help themselves will take a hand up rather than a handout. HOwever the
bureaucracies needs those looking for handouts to continue to exist at
its current level. Those who wish to really help the poor become self
reliant and self sufficient burn out while those that muddle on
through with the tried and true graduate to supervisory positions.
THe PEter principle at work.

SIgn me a cynical ol' fart!





Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



Braille: support true literacy for the blind!

"P Stamler" wrote in message
...

Well, some of them are that -- Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's wife, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt bear no false witness. But
some of them are strictly parochial, meant to enforce the religious
preferences
of the tribe against those of surrounding tribes: Thou shalt have no other
gods
before me (at a time when various groups around the area worshipped various
gods) and Thou shalt make no graven images (at a time when the other tribes
made them). Those were about specific tribal definitions rather than general
laws of human behavior, and those definitions were explicit preferences of the
Jews (worship of only a single god, no worship of idols) rather than universal
laws.


This is probably going to seem pedantic in nature, but it's really not, Paul.
No, really. g

First, I'd say that its not accurate to call the assembled tribes all "Jews."
They were not. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin became the kingdom of Judah, and
the other ten tribes became the kingdom of Israel (with the priestly Levites
being separated among the tribes.)

Is strikes some people as odd to read in the Bible where at one time the Jews
were at war with Israel, until they realize that the Israel of the Bible is not
the state of Israel today. Then there's the distinction one of my MOT friends
makes between religious Jews and "nominal Jews."

All Jews are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews in the same way that
all Texans are Americans, but not all Americans are Texans.

Sorry if that sounds pedantic, but in light of prophesy (old or new testament,
take your pick) it matters; there are prophesies aimed at the house of Judah,
and prophesies aimed at the house of Israel.

As to the first commandment, strip away the religious aspect and substitute the
phrase "the thing that matters most" for "God" and the point is not to get your
priorities screwed up. Of course, back then there was a problem with the
children of Israel dispossessing others of their land and taking up the
dispossessed religious ways. Obviously a problem, considering the polytheism and
things like throwing babies into the fire.

Today people tend to worship money, jobs, titles, people, whatever. Self-made
men tend to worship their "creator". Usually that causes a problem. This all
fits well with the second commandment.

By the way, the Bible does state categorically that the scepter -- leadership,
rule -- will not depart from Judah. I firmly believe that's continued to be the
case to this day.

Allowing for the partial truth of what you say... How would you "punish"
these
people for their bad behavior? "Survival of the fittest" does NOT apply to
the
poor and disadvantaged -- they keep reproducing, with or without government
support programs.

In years past the pressure of their community or church provided some incentive
for behavior modification..to a degree.
Punishment??...That's tough..as the view could be held that they are punsihing
the rest of us.

If there's a government plot, it's
from the conservatives -- to give poor people "just enough" support they
won't
want to revolt.

This is tough too.. how much shopuld "we" give "them"...would the "poor"
revolting help the nation overall? If they can't figure a way to end their
poverty by any other means..how
would revolting help..if it were even possible? Most people I know who
experience tough times can't even show up for an appointment on time or even
tell time in some cases. Let's see 4 hours @$50/hr...many insist that this is
somewhere between $0 and $200..depending on what they think they can get away
with.

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

First, I'd say that its not accurate to call the assembled tribes all "Jews."
They were not. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin became the kingdom of Judah,
and
the other ten tribes became the kingdom of Israel (with the priestly Levites
being separated among the tribes.)

Is strikes some people as odd to read in the Bible where at one time the Jews
were at war with Israel, until they realize that the Israel of the Bible is
not
the state of Israel today. Then there's the distinction one of my MOT friends
makes between religious Jews and "nominal Jews."

All Jews are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews in the same way that
all Texans are Americans, but not all Americans are Texans.

Sorry if that sounds pedantic, but in light of prophesy (old or new
testament,
take your pick) it matters; there are prophesies aimed at the house of Judah,
and prophesies aimed at the house of Israel.

As to the first commandment, strip away the religious aspect and substitute
the
phrase "the thing that matters most" for "God" and the point is not to get
your
priorities screwed up. Of course, back then there was a problem with the
children of Israel dispossessing others of their land and taking up the
dispossessed religious ways. Obviously a problem, considering the polytheism
and
things like throwing babies into the fire.

Today people tend to worship money, jobs, titles, people, whatever. Self-made
men tend to worship their "creator". Usually that causes a problem. This all
fits well with the second commandment.

Okay, point taken -- I was loose with my terminology. But I restate that the
Big Commandments -- thou shalt not kill, etc. -- are clear, upfront, universal
rules that are found in human societies worldwide. The ones I'll call the Local
Commandments -- about which god to worship and how not to worship him (idols)
-- in order to interpret those as universal you suddenly need to be
interpreting them allegorically or metaphorically. Whereas "thou shalt not
kill" is straightforward -- thou shalt not kill. I prefer the interpretation
that the Local Commandments are also literal, but concern themselves with the
specifics of religious practice for those folks who were on their way out of
Egypt. Which is why I call them local -- they pertain to the practices of those
specific people.

Peace,
Paul

While it is true that many of our laws are based on religious
tenets, those tenets are based on common sense and pragmatic decisions about

how people can best survive together. Would you think killing was OK if the

Bible didn't tell you otherwise?

I hope that I would but the question cannot exist out of context so..noone
knows.
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

"James Boyk" wrote ...
I know of a Southern California college where a prof. flunked a student
for
plagiarism; the student took the prof. to the honor council saying that
the
prof. never said plagiarism was unacceptable; and the student won.


Nothing could be as dismaying; but another dismaying aspect of the case
was that
the prof. department did not support him in claiming that the
unacceptability of
plagiarism was the bedrock on which all of academia stands.

The *WHAT* Council???? :-(

James Boyk wrote:

Nothing could be as dismaying; but another dismaying aspect of the case
was that the prof. department did not support him in claiming that the
unacceptability of plagiarism was the bedrock on which all of academia
stands.

But it is better than not showing up at all. At least the student
learned something..

Rob Adelman wrote:
But it is better than not showing up at all. At least the student
learned something..


You're joking, but I can't figure out the joke.


James Boyk

Richard Crowley wrote: The *WHAT* Council???? :-(


Yes. Well, uh.... good point.


James Boyk

About that student who plagiarized...these days virtually every academic
institution has an official statement on plagiarism which is sent to every
entering student. If the college you mentioned did that, then it wouldn't
matter whether the prof. said it too; the student had been told.

Are we far enough from the 87 billion yet, having covered teen pregnancy, the
Bible, and academic plagiarism?

Peace,
Paul

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 2:42 PM, Jay Kadis
wrote:
When the local police came to my high school to educate us about
drugs, they
passed a pair of "joints" around the audience in a plastic case. When
the case
came back, it contained 3 joints. The program was never repeated.
This was
1966.

-Jay


Did you have David Blaine in your class or something?

CLASS! CLASS!
Officer Stedenko is a Narcotics Officer.

I think that comedy skit killed those classroom visits for a while too.



---------------------------------------------------------
"You Teach A Child To Read, And He Or Her Will Be Able To Pass A Literacy
Test"
- George W Bush - Townsend Tn . Feb 21rst -2001
---------------------------------------------------------

"P Stamler" wrote in message
...

Are we far enough from the 87 billion yet, having covered teen pregnancy, the
Bible, and academic plagiarism?

I don't know Paul. We still haven't had anything thing at all about momma, or
trains, or trucks, or prisons, or gettin' drunk.

John

P Stamler wrote:

Are we far enough from the 87 billion yet, having covered teen pregnancy, the
Bible, and academic plagiarism?

So what are the specific hairs in your shirt?

--
ha

James Boyk wrote:

Rob Adelman wrote:

But it is better than not showing up at all. At least the student
learned something..

You're joking, but I can't figure out the joke.

Copying and pasting is a skill of sorts.

--
ha

"P Stamler" wrote in message
...

Are we far enough from the 87 billion yet, having covered teen pregnancy,
the
Bible, and academic plagiarism?

I don't know Paul. We still haven't had anything thing at all about momma, or
trains, or trucks, or prisons, or gettin' drunk.

I was drunk the night my mom got out of prison....

Still, IMHO, the greatest line Steve Goodman ever wrote.

Peace,
Paul

John LeBlanc wrote:

Kids make decisions the way adults do. They consider the information they have.
Not that we expect them to make the best decision, but you can bet it's going to
be a bad one without all the facts.


No, they don't. There's scientific evidence their brains aren't wired to
process information the same as adults. That's why they do so many
things without regard for the consequences. In most adolesence's there's
a powerful tendency to think negative consequences will not happen to
them, and any advice to the contrary is ignored as not within the realm
of possibilities.

I know I did some pretty scary stuff as a teenager (like most of us)

"P Stamler" wrote in message
...


"P Stamler" wrote in message
...

Are we far enough from the 87 billion yet, having covered teen pregnancy,
the
Bible, and academic plagiarism?

I don't know Paul. We still haven't had anything thing at all about momma, or
trains, or trucks, or prisons, or gettin' drunk.

I was drunk the night my mom got out of prison....

Still, IMHO, the greatest line Steve Goodman ever wrote.


Turned out to be the perfect country and western song. May he rest in peace.

John

"John.LeBlanc" wrote:

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
...

Would you think killing was OK if the
Bible didn't tell you otherwise?

From the Biblical standpoint, every one of the ten commandments can be
demonstrated to have been in effect before the tables of stone hit the scene.

From a social perspective, we need rules to make sure society can
function. Every society has its rules, maybe as religious beliefs, or
not, depending on the society. I'm all for law and justice, but not as
handed down as dogma. We're all free in the US to practice religion as
we see fit, but please stop insisting your religion is the basis for our
legal system.

"steve" wrote in message
...


"John.LeBlanc" wrote:

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
...

Would you think killing was OK if the
Bible didn't tell you otherwise?

From the Biblical standpoint, every one of the ten commandments can be
demonstrated to have been in effect before the tables of stone hit the
scene.

From a social perspective, we need rules to make sure society can
function. Every society has its rules, maybe as religious beliefs, or
not, depending on the society. I'm all for law and justice, but not as
handed down as dogma. We're all free in the US to practice religion as
we see fit, but please stop insisting your religion is the basis for our
legal system.

Kindly demonstrate where I stated such an absurd thing.

John

It was a few post's back in this thread, but it was another poster who
said most of our laws come by way of religion.

John LeBlanc wrote:

"steve" wrote in message
...


"John.LeBlanc" wrote:

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
...

Would you think killing was OK if the
Bible didn't tell you otherwise?

From the Biblical standpoint, every one of the ten commandments can be
demonstrated to have been in effect before the tables of stone hit the
scene.

From a social perspective, we need rules to make sure society can
function. Every society has its rules, maybe as religious beliefs, or
not, depending on the society. I'm all for law and justice, but not as
handed down as dogma. We're all free in the US to practice religion as
we see fit, but please stop insisting your religion is the basis for our
legal system.

Kindly demonstrate where I stated such an absurd thing.

John